^: .«IISiU!iSi%%%%%'.%"i%'«'»'-'«'«"« ■ 




eM«.".-«'"."l»; 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

COPYRIGHT OFFICE. 

No registration of title of this book 
as a preliminary to copyright protec- 
tion has been found. 

Forwarded to Order Division -^-?^:._^ • ._'_9 "2 

(bate) 



(Apr. 5, 1901—5,000.) 



^^ 



/ 




Qass. 
Book. 



■f?35r 



THE 

OLD TESTAMENT 



FROM THE 



MODERN POINT OF VIEW 



THE OLD TESTAMENT 



FROM THE 



MODERN POINT OF VIEW 



\^0S'BY^HE 

REV, if Wr^BATTEN, Ph.D. 

Rector of St. Mark's Church, New York ; formerly Professor of the 

Old Testament Lancrtiages and Literature in the 

Philadelphia Divinity School 



SECOND EDITION 



New York 

EDWIN S. GORHAM, PUBLISHER 

Fourth Avenue and 22d Street 

1901 



UaAARY of CONGRESS 


Two Cooles Received 


OCT 4 »90r 


C<H>yn«ht Entrv' 


CLASS XXC, No. 


COPY B. 






Copyright, 1899 

BY 

JAMES POTT «& COMPANY 



R.eceived from 
Copv .ice. 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



SOME typographical errors have been corrected in this edition ; 
but I have not deemed it advisable to change the text. 
I am glad to have this opportunity to express my gratitude for 
the many kind words which have been said about this book, both 
in reviews and in letters. The particular testimony which I value 
most is that the book has been found useful to students of the 
Bible, and that it has proved helpful to a vital faith. 

L. W. B. 
St. Mark's Church, New York, 
January i, 1901. 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM THE 
MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 



PREFACE, 



EVERY age has its own way of looking at things. The things 
themselves are the same in every age ; but they often ap- 
pear to be different as they are seen from one or another 
point of view. In many respects it is impossible for us to see as 
our fathers saw. We can see as they did only as we are able to 
get their point of view. It is doubtless best for every age to see 
with its own eyes, because with them it can see most clearly, and 
it is by clear vision that true progress can be made. 

If we look at the Old Testament from the modern point of view, 
we see the same collection of sacred writings which our fathers in 
the Christian Church have long held in high veneration ; but we 
see them as they did not and could not. We may hope that we 
are of the same spirit as they, but we must not forego the vantage 
point of our many centuries of progress. 

The modern point of view, in Biblical science, as in other 
sciences, is merely the point from which one endeavors to see 
things as they are. This age is not wont to look at things from 
the standpoint of an established theory, but from that of a deter- 
mination to get at the actual facts. In some respects modern 
science seems cold, irreverent, even reckless in its quest of truth. 
Applied to the Bible, it seems to pay little heed to theories of the 



ii PREFACE, 

date and authorship of the sacred writings — theories which have 
been so long cherished that they have come to be regarded as 
established facts. But after all the effort is good in its purpose. 
For it is evident that its aim is to get back of the long prevalent 
opinions, and to see things as they appeared to those who lived and 
moved and had their being among the things in question. 

It is undoubtedly a great gain to be able to look upon an ancient 
writing from the point of view of the writer and of his first readers. 
It is a great gain to stand beside the ancient prophet, and to see 
the conditions which he saw, and by which God moved his pro- 
phetic spirit. To do this we must look with the eyes of our own 
age, because it is thus we are enabled to look with the eyes of the 
prophet. The object of modern historical criticism, therefore, is to 
get back to the view-point of those who spoke and wrote in an- 
cient times. 

The sacred literature of the Hebrews has come down to us in 
books and collections of books. The eyes of this generation are 
turned back to see how those books were made, and to understand 
the controlling literary spirit of the times in which they were com- 
posed. 

There are some aspects of the Old Testament which must appear 
essentially the same to every devout Christian student, no matter 
to what period he belongs. In the fourth Christian century, for 
example, the fundamental belief of the Church was thus expressed 
in the Nicene Creed : '* Who spake by the prophets." Those 
words state clearly and admirably the faith of the present age as 
well, and of every age intervening. 

In the last chapter of the present volume I have dwelt upon the 
effects of Biblical criticism upon the essentials of the faith, my aim 
and desire being to show that critical investigation does not have a 
harmful, but a helpful result. That chapter stands in its logical 
position at the end of the book ; but nevertheless it may be well 



PREFACE. iii 

for readers to whom the problems herein discussed are compara- 
tively new to read that chapter first. The doctrine which is sup- 
posed to be most seriously and harmfully affected by the results of 
criticism is inspiration. As a theory, it is true, inspiration is looked 
at differently to-day from what it has been in the past ; but there 
is more than compensating gain in that the emphasis is now laid 
upon the fact of inspiration. 

The subjects discussed in this volume are chiefly the literary 
problems which a thoughtful reading of the Old Testament inevit- 
ably raises. In dealing with these problems I have felt no dispo- 
sition to be dogmatic. On the contrary, I have desired to lay 
before the reader the evidence upon which modern results are 
based, so that he can himself judge of their validity. It did not 
come within the scope of my plan to take up all the problems of 
the Old Testament ; but I have chosen typical examples from the 
different parts into which the Hebrew Scriptures are naturally 
divided. It seemed to me that in this way could be given the best 
general idea of the work which has been done. 

Coleridge says that " an author has three points to settle : to 
what sort his work belongs, for what description of readers it is 
intended, and the specific end, or object, which it is to answer." 

The first of these points has already been answered, at least in 
part. If any further statement is needed, I could not give it better 
than in the words of the author just quoted : *' It belongs to the 
class of didactic works. Consequently, those who neither wish 
instruction for themselves, nor assistance in instructing others 
have no interest in its contents." The aim of this book certainly 
is not to entertain, but to teach. If it fails in that, it is a failure 
altogether. 

With that emphatic statement, I pass on to Coleridge's second 
point, " For whom ? " The book was not written for the compar- 
atively small body of Old Testament scholars, who are familiar 



iv PREFACE. 

with the working out of all the problems considered here", and 
whose knowledge would not be increased by anything I have said. 
There has been no effort to fill these pages with original contribu- 
tions in fields already well worked. 

But there is, I am persuaded, a large class of thoughtful Chris- 
tian people who have not leisure for scholarly investigation, but 
who nevertheless desire to have some exact knowledge of the dis- 
cussions which have so greatly influenced the modern view of the 
Old Testament. They may or may not be prepared to accept the 
conclusions reached by the specialists ; but they do wish to know 
what those scholars hold, and the character of the evidence upon 
which their opinions are based. They want this knowledge fur- 
nished in a form readily intelligible to those who have no large 
acquaintance with the books which treat of the questions at issue ; 
and they want the information in a form sufficiently brief for the 
busiest man in this busy age. 

Whether I have succeeded in meeting the wants of this class or 
not it is of course for them to say. But if this book does meet 
their needs, it will, at least in the mind of the writer, justify its 
existence. 

I spoke advisedly of this class as Christian ; for this book has 
been written, as will appear to those who read it through, from the 
point of view of a believer, not only in the verities of the Christian 
religion, but also in the Old Testament as an inspired record of a 
divine revelation. However great freedom the writer may feel in 
the investigation of the critical questions which are found in the 
Old Testament, he desires to assert most emphatically that he 
discovers nothing in the results of his studies at variance with the 
Christian faith. 

Coleridge's third point is, " For what?" There are some people 
who have been seriously troubled by the new ideas of the Old 
Testament which are now becoming so widely prevalent. But 



PREFACE. V 

there is also a large number whose religious faith was wrecked by 
a theory of the Old Testament which laid upon their consciences 
a burden greater than they could bear. The modern views have 
helped many of this class to re-accept the once discarded Scrip- 
tures, and to get back their Christian faith. 

The Old Testament, of late years, has been sadly neglected 
among Christian believers. They could best meet its difficulties 
by letting it alone. There are now good signs of a revival of in- 
terest in these books, which were the sacred Scriptures of our Lord 
and of His Apostles. That revival will be greatly helped by the 
dissemination of truer views of the actual course of events in He- 
brew history, and of the actual character of the Old Testament 
records. 

The writer ventures to hope also that those who are at present 
unfriendly toward the historical criticism of the Bible will come to 
recognize at least the fact that the animus of the critical student is 
good. Difference of opinion, in matters of opinion, is a slight 
thing ; but the misapprehension of motive is a serious thing. If 
this presentation of modern views of the Old Testament shall help 
along a juster appreciation of critical investigation on the part of 
those who now fear that it is destructive, one earnest hope of the 
writer will be fulfilled. 

No attempt has been made to make the work a compendium of 
critical opinions ; nor have I sought to support every assertion by 
abundant references. I have not pretended to acknowledge all my 
indebtedness to others ; for the task would be too great. This 
book is the fruit of ten years' study and teaching of the Old Testa- 
ment ; but I gladly acknowledge the aid which I have received in 
those years from all the many good books, new and old, which 
have been written upon these subjects. 

The translation of the passages cited from the Old Testament is 
my own. I claim no especial credit for this ; but I could not satisfy 



VI PREFACE. 

myself with following any existing version. The one rnerk at 
which I have aimed is fidelity to the original. I have departed as 
little as possible, however, from the Revised Version. 

It will be noted that in the translations I have used " Jahveh " as 
the sacred name of God, in other places " Jehovah." When one 
remembers that the name "Jehovah " is formed by combining the 
consonants of the sacred name JHVH with the vowels of another 
divine name, Adonai (Lord), which the later Jews substituted for 
JHVH in reading the Scriptures, he cannot help wishing that we 
were rid entirely of this unfortunate form. But while "Jahveh" 
(or, perhaps better, Yahwe), represents the probable pronunciation 
of the name, it is not certainly so. We are likely at any day to get 
evidence from the Babylonian inscriptions which will definitely set- 
tle this vexed question. When we are assured of the correct form 
of the name, we should be ready to abandon the form " Jehovah." 
We are sure that no Hebrew ever called the Deity by that name ; 
but neither are we sure, in spite of the strange guesses we now 
sometimes see in print, in what way the divine name was pro- 
nounced. 

I wish to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my 
former preceptor, Dr. John P. Peters ; to my former colleague, 
Prof. R. W. Micou, D.D.; and to my present co-worker. Prof. 
Wm. M. Groton, who have read the manuscript or proof of this 
book, and from all of whom I have received helpful suggestions. 

L. W. Batten. 
Philadelphia Divinity School, 
March 8, 1899. 



CHAPTER I. 

"ffntroDuctori?. 

Pp. 7-30. 



CHAPTER II. 

General Braumente agafnst tbe 
IDaliDitg of Critical IResulta. 

Pp. 31-52. 



CHAPTER III. 

XLbc Ibejateucb. 

I. THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 
Pp. 53.-78. 

CHAPTER IV. 

^be Ibejateucb. 

2. THE NARRATIVE. 

Pp. 79-119- 
CHAPTER V. 

Ebe Ibejateucb. 

3. THE LAW. 
Pp. 120-160. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Zbc Ibistorlcal JSooKs. 

Pp. 161-186. 

CHAPTER VII. 

JBtWlcal Distorg. 

Pp. 187-220. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

^be ipropbets. 

Pp. 221-254. 

CHAPTER IX. 

^be JBook of ipealms. 

1. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

Pp. 255-284. 

CHAPTER X. 

XTbe JBooft ot ipsalms. 

2. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

Pp. 285-312. 

CHAPTER XI. 

Criticism auD tbc Supernatural. 

Pp. 313-341. 

INDEXES. 
Pp- 343-354- 



CHAPTER L 



Untrobuctori?. 

THE higher criticism has ceased to be a young 
science. Measured by time, or by the truer 
standard of achievement, it has won its way 
to the front rank, and is now recognized generally as 
an indispensable handmaid in Biblical study. Many 
people, however, speak freely of this science who do 
not seem to have a clear knowledge of its precise 
scope. It is especially common to find the conclu- 
sions of a particular school of Biblical scholars iden- 
tified with the name of the method by which their 
results were reached. It is well to state at the be- 
ginning just what is meant by the term Higher Criti- 
cism, a term which will be often used in this book, 
and which is so much used in theological discussions 
to-day. 

In spite of its seemingly arrogant name, a source 
of offence to many, this branch of study aims to be 
modest enough. We need not ask higher than what ? 
(or the English comparative fills a multitude of func- 
tions, and the term here simply marks a contrast with 
another kind of criticism called the lower. The lower 
criticism deals with the text, and is now in fact more 



8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

commonly called textual criticism. Until very recent- 
ly lower criticism was not much applied to the Old 
Testament, though it has long been recognized as 
indispensable in critical New Testament study. 

In the case of the New Testament there are mate- 
rials for this science which are altogether lacking in 
that of the Old. The oldest Hebrew manuscript does 
not antedate the tenth century A.D. ; moreover, all 
Hebrew manuscripts belong to the same family, and 
therefore exhibit no important variants. In the text- 
ual criticism of the Old Testament, therefore, reliance 
must be placed on the ancient translations in Greek, 
Latin and Syriac, and upon conjecture. Even with 
such scanty materials considerable progress has been 
made in the past few years, the Polychrome Bible (in 
Hebrew) being the first attempt to publish a critically 
revised text. Just because the data are so few, it is 
but natural that, when a start was once made, conjec- 
tural emendations of the text should occupy a promi- 
nent place. The pendulum seems at present likely to 
make a pretty wide arc in that direction before it set- 
tles down to a proper centre. But a sound text is es- 
sential as the basis for all other study. Being, there- 
fore, the foundation of all Biblicai! criticism, and in this 
sense only, it is called lower. One part of the super- 
structure may inoffensively be called higher in a purely 
spatial relation, without seeming to be arrogant, or to 
disparage anything else. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 9 

Higher criticism is purely literary in its character. 
The term literary criticism is innocent enough ; yet it 
is the same thing as the higher criticism. The latter 
term has proved unfortunate, as it has opened the way 
for many more or less clever gibes from those who 
like it not. But doubtless the wits would have found 
some other subject to ridicule, if this opening had been 
denied them. Higher criticism is a method of study, 
and does not imply any particular kind of results, radi- 
cal, moderate, conservative, or traditional. 

There is a single question we must ask of any writ- 
ing which we undertake to study : What is its origin? 
The method by which we seek to answer that question 
scientifically is the higher criticism. The application 
of this method by different hands produces very differ- 
ent results. The array of evidence is marshalled- by 
this method, but the judgment which is pronounced 
upon the evidence is beyond the sphere of this science. 
One scholar examines the evidence — language, style, 
thought, historical allusions, etc., and concludes that 
a certain Psalm, let us say, is pre-exilic ; another using 
precisely the same evidence may conclude that it is 
Maccabean ; but both alike are higher critics, and they 
reach their different results by the science of higher 
criticism. 

In the study of the Old Testament the higher criti- 
cism has been applied very persistently and thor- 
oughly, and with most important results. Its sphere 



lo THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

is the age, authorship and structure of the various 
books. It is often looked upon as a new science. In 
a sense it is. But sometimes it appears that the 
Preacher was right, and that ** there is nothing new 
under the sun." The fact is that higher criticism was 
applied to the Old Testament a long while ago, as the 
example following will show. 

It would be rash to venture an opinion as to the 
date when the heading was prefixed to the Song of 
Deborah, one of the earliest literary monuments of the 
Hebrew Bible. This heading (Judges v. i) reads, 
*' Now Deborah and Barak, the son of Abinoam, sang 

in that day, saying ." But an examination of this 

heading, or title page (for such these headings are), 
shows that the one who placed it there was a higher 
critic ; for he tells us (i) the character of the writing, 
that it is a song ; (2) the age, on the day of the great 
battle with Sisera ; (3) the authors, Deborsih and 
Barak ; (4) the structure of the poem, reaching the 
radical conclusion that the song was composite, as he 
deems it the joint production of two authors.* It ap- 
pears that this higher critic, who lived several centuries 
before Christ, had no more data to determine these 

* The form in the Hebrew shows that the words " and Barak, 
the son of Abinoam," were an afterthought, probably by a second 
editon (See Moore's " Judges," in loc.) Literally rendered, the 
passage runs: "And sang Deborah, and Barak, the son of Abi- 
noam." The verb "sang" is the third feminine singular, and 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. ii 

questions than we have to-day. It, therefore, is not 
surprising that many modern higher critics have 
reached a different result from their early Jewish pred- 
ecessor. Those who prefixed headings to the various 
prophecies, to the Psalms, and to other Old Testa- 
ment writings, were likewise higher critics. In fact, 
this science flourished for a considerable period in pre- 
Christian times. 

These critics, like their modern successors, did not 
always agree in their conclusions ; and it sometimes 
happens that there is preserved more than one opinion 
as to the authorship of certain pieces. Examples of 
this will be found in the treatment of the Psalter ; but 
a single instance may be cited here. The title to 
Psalm Ixxxviii. reads thus: '*A song. A psalm of 
the sons of Korah. For the liturgy. To (the tune 
of) the sickness. To be sung. A didactic poem 
(Maskil) of Heman the Ezrahite." The meaning of 
some of the terms in the Psalm headings is quite un- 
certain. I have used some of the renderings of the 
Polychrome Bible. But it is clear that the above 
heading is the result ot successive editings, and that 
two different authors are credited with this poem. 

The most marked achievement of modern higher 

Deborah alone is its proper subject. It may be, therefore, that 
there were two higher critics from the pre-Christian age whose 
conclusions have survived. Early Christian criticism even essayed 
to state which parts of the poem were due to each of the authors. 



12 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

criticism is the analysis of books which have hereto- 
fore been reg^arded as the production of a single writer. 
There is nothing inherently unreasonable in this critical 
analysis, for there are many ways in which an author 
might construct a book. He might compose it entirely 
from his own mind ; he might use other writers freely, 
having read and digested their ideas; or he might simply 
extract passages from different authors, adding only 
such notes as were necessary to connect the passages 
borrowed. 

Suppose, for example, one wanted to prepare a his- 
tory of the United States by compilation. By a judi- 
cious selection it would be possible to produce a very 
useful history, probably more useful than any single 
one now in existence. For no one can fully know 
the history of any period who has read but a single 
book. 

Now the contention of the modern critics is, that a 
large number of the books of the Hebrew Bible were 
put into their present form by compilation. In mod- 
ern times literary ethics requires the use of quotation 
marks, and generally the source quoted must be indi- 
cated ; but in ancient Israel there was no such thing 
as literary ethics. We should not justly appreciate 
such a compilation as mentioned above, because of the 
great premium which is placed upon originality ; but 
among the ancient Hebrews, originality was so little 
prized that books were published anonymously, or un- 



THE MODERN' POINT OF VIEW. 13 

der a nom dc phune, the favorite kind being- the name of 
some famous person of the past. This custom lasted 
into the Christian centuries, too. There is a famous 
writer of the fifth century A.D., whom we only know 
under his nom de plume of Dionysius the Areopagite, a 
Greek who was converted by St. Paul at Athens, and 
who lived therefore several centuries earlier than the 
unknown author who borrowed his name.* 

Among the Hebrews, as among other peoples, there 
was an age of original literary production, and there 
was another age when indeed " of the making of many 
books there was no end," but when the literary spirit 
had changed. The genius of men was engaged in 
compilation and codification rather than in original 
production. Earlier literature was treated with great 
freedom. Parallel histories were woven into one ; 
scattered prophecies and poems were collected into 
convenient books ; and these collections acquired a 
position of authority previously unknown. 

It is often supposed that much mischief was done in 
this age of collecting and editing, because so many 
original sources were lost or obscured in the process 
of compilation. On the contrary, too much gratitude 
can scarcely be expressed to those somewhat mechan- 
ical bookmakers. If anywhere in Church history the 
hand of God can be seen, it is there. We owe it ap- 
parently to those worthies that any considerable body 
* Allen, " Christian Institutions," p. 495. 



14 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

of Hebrew sacred literature is preserved. It would be 
indeed a great booi:i if we had the sources used by those 
compilers. It is often assumed that the compilers are 
responsible for their loss; but this assumption is utterly 
without warrant. It is quite absurd to suppose that 
when, for example, the two earliest sources of our 
present Pentateuch were combined into a single his- 
tory, the compiler immediately destroyed every extant 
copy of the originals. 

The compiler of Joshua has preserved an all too 
brief extract from the '' Book of Jashar," a collection 
of poems celebrating the exploits of Israel's early 
heroes, but is he therefore responsible for the loss of 
that book ? The value of these sources would indeed 
be inestimable ; but it is infinitely better to have 
such extracts as the compilers have preserved than 
none at all. It was the sacred character of these 
compilations which saved them from destruction in 
such perilous days for Hebrew literature as those 
of Antiochus Epiphanes. On the doctrinal side it 
is easy to ridicule the idea of the inspiration of the 
various redactors or editors; it is easy also to find flaws 
in their poor literary work; but the Church owes them 
a debt which should cover a multitude of sins; for they, 
under God's providence, saved the Hebrew Scriptures. 

It is often objected to the higher criticism that its 
results are negative and destructive. It must frankly 
plead guilty to this indictment ; but not in the sense 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 15 

too often intended. Whenever it is necessary to cor- 
rect a generally received error, there is necessarily a 
negative and destructive side to the correction ; and it 
often happens that the correction for a time goes no 
further. But the positive and constructive stage is 
sure to follow. When, for example, Joseph Mede in 
1632 denied that Zechariah the prophet wrote the 
whole of the book called by his name, that result was 
negative ; but when he said further that Jeremiah 
wrote a part of this prophecy, his conclusion was posi- 
tive and constructive.^ 

In Biblical criticism it is often inevitable that the 
negative stage shall be in part final. The second part 
of Isaiah is believed to belong to the time of the 
Babylonian exile. In removing it from the Isaianic 
age and authorship, the result is negative. As it is im- 
possible to tell who the exilic author was, the negative 
result must be final, so far as authorship goes. But is 
it a purely negative result to remove a wrong conclu- 
sion, even if it is not possible to put the right one in 
its place ? But criticism was not obliged to stop with 
a negation. The prophecy is removed from an age to 
which it does not belong, and in which it has no fit- 
ness, to its true position, where every hne speaks with 
new life and meaning. Is this result not both positive 

* His object was to vindicate St. Matthew's reference (xxvii. 9) of 
a quotation from Zechariah (xi. 13) to Jeremiah. See G. A. Smith's 
" Twelve Prophets," II., 450. 



1 6 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

and constructive ? The history of the Jews in exile 
was almost a blank until this result was reached. Now 
we have material which enables us to draw a tolerably 
complete picture of that interesting stage in Israel's his- 
tory. On the whole, then, is this critical discovery loss 
or gain ? 

The critical conclusions of modern times are not the 
result of a destructive or sceptical spirit which seeks 
to find as many errors as possible in the Bible, or in 
the traditional views about the Bible. They are the 
result of an effort to explain the facts which one finds 
in the Bible the moment one begins to study it with 
care. Why did Mede assign a part of Zechariah to 
Jeremiah ? He found that St. Matthew quoted a pas- 
sage from the former, but credited it to the latter. It 
was apparent, then, that either the statement in the 
Gospel was an error, or else that Jeremiah wrote the 
passage in question. Mede preferred the latter alter- 
native, and his conclusion is the only logical one for 
those who m.aintain that the New Testament use is de- 
cisive in critical questions. The modern critic finds 
insuperable difficulties against assigning this passage 
to either Zechariah or Jeremiah ; but the difficulties 
are not brought in from the outside ; they lie in the 
prophecy itself. 

Many other illustrations of this important aspect of 
the higher criticism will be found in the subsequent 
chapters. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 17 

It appears, therefore, that the aim of the higher criti- 
cism is to find the true solution of problems which 
force themselves upon the attentive student. What- 
ever one may think of its results, its motive at least is 
good. The truth does not always seem to be pleas- 
ant ; in fact it is often very grievous ; but nevertheless 
we perceive that it is best as soon as our eyes are open 
to see, and in the long run it will prevail. It may be 
hard to give up the Davidic authorship of a particular 
psalm ; but if David did not write it, there can be little 
use in keeping up the illusion. 

The grief which comes to many earnest minds from 
the results of Biblical criticism is due in large measure 
to expectations of the Old Testament revelation which 
never should have been raised. People who find them- 
selves troubled about these things would do well to 
study somewhat carefully the New Testament doctrine 
of the Old Testament.^ It is often said that the full 
revelation in the Lord Jesus Christ sets aside for Chris- 
tians only the ceremonial law of the Jews. But is this 
really all? Let us see. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews begins with this sug- 
gestive utterance : " God, having of old time spoken 
unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions 
and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days 

* Reference may be made to such guides as Toy's " Quotations in 
the New Testament," and to an article by Dr. J. P. Peters, " Christ's 
Treatment of the Old Testament," J. B. L., 1896, p. S/ff. 



i8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

spoken unto us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of 
all things . . . having become so much better 
than the angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent 
name than they." Now this writer distinctly recog- 
nizes the fact that the prophets were inspired, that is, 
that God spoke through them; but he claims quite as 
distinctly that the revelation through the Son was a 
superior revelation. Hence it follows that the revela- 
tion through the prophets was imperfect, even though 
it was real. 

But there is higher authority than this, and there is 
no use standing on the threshold when we may go 
fully into the house. Our Lord repeatedly sets aside 
laws, doctrines, or morals of the Old Testament. On 
what ground ? That they were not of God ? By no 
means ; but because they were only temporary expe- 
dients suitable for the conditions of the times, but not 
on the plane of Christian righteousness. 

Divorce is not a ceremonial matter, surely; and the 
Mosaic Law contains specific regulations upon this 
subject ; but our Lord set them aside, and gave a law 
which has not yet been attained in any Christian 
State. A considerable part of the Sermon on the 
Mount consists of corrections of the Mosaic Law, even 
of its most venerated part, the Decalogue. The pro- 
hibitions, '' Thou shalt not kill," " Thou shalt not com- 
mit adultery," etc., do not go far enough, according to 
the teaching of Jesus. One may keep them all and 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE fV. 19 

yet be a grievous sinner. The /e:t^ talionisy which may 
have been a wise law for the early Hebrews, is dis- 
tinctly set aside ; so is the law to hate one's enemy. 
None of these are ritual matters. In fact our Lord 
does not seem to have had much to say against the 
ceremonial law, and was Himself somewhat scrupulous 
in the observance of the sacred seasons. But His atti- 
tude shows that He adjudged the old law to be imper- 
fect. Therefore it is not for us to exalt the God- 
inspired to a level with the God-Man, nor to expect to 
see as clearly in the dawn as in the mid-day. It is 
true that we shall best understand the Son if we know 
the prophets, but the prophet cannot speak to us the 
final word; that was reserved for the Son. 

Arrogant as the higher critic is often supposed to be, 
he does not stand forth to speak with the voice of author- 
ity, though he may speak with conviction. But the crit- 
ical student feels that any problem which the Scriptures 
force upon him is a fair subject of investigation. Never- 
theless it is often claimed that the New Testament has 
pronounced upon the literary questions which the higher 
critic deals with so freely, and that that pronounce- 
ment is authoritative ; therefore to open these ques- 
tions is impossible for the Christian. There are really 
two questions involved in this contention. Did the 
New Testament pronounce upon those critical prob- 
lems? And, if so, is its judgment final? For com- 
plete treatment we should have to examine the whole 



20 . THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

New Testament usage. But it will be sufficient to take 
the statements of our Lord. If His voice does not 
silence criticism, no other will. 

It is well to keep in mind that such a study must be 
undertaken with all reverence. The free way in which 
our Lord has been dragged to the witness stand in such 
discussions is repulsive in the extreme. Some whose 
devotion to Jesus Christ is greater than their concern 
about any critical question whatever repudiate such a 
settlement, whether it makes for or against their own 
opinions. But there are many who are sorely per- 
plexed by this matter. The acceptance of critical 
conclusions seems to require them to set aside the 
authority of Jesus Christ. The evidence may be over- 
whelming, but how can they attribute error to Him ? 

One's sympathy for those who feel thus cannot but 
be strong. For myself I am free to say that if I 
believed that Jesus Christ had deliberately and ad- 
visedly stated that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, I 
should accept it, and that without the nearly univer- 
sal exception of the account of his death and burial 
(Deut. xxxiv.). When one decides critical questions on 
the ground of authority, he must accept the result as 
a whole. There is no use in straining at gnats and 
swallowing camels. But did our Lord ever pronounce 
on these questions? One may well doubt it, and in a 
case like this, as in a jury trial, a reasonable doubt is 
quite sufficient to justify a negative verdict. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 2i 

It will strike any one who reads the Gospels with 
such a question in his mind as singular, if our Lord 
were concerned about settling, for instance, the Mosaic 
authorship of the Pentateuch, that He passed by such 
good opportunities to settle orrce for all a question 
which has sorely vexed His people."^ In the Sermon 
on the Mount, where the Law is referred to so often, 
He does not once mention Moses, but uses the criti- 
cally colorless phrase, " It was said." But in some 
other cases where He refers to the Law He simply 
uses the term Moses; as, "The gift that Moses com- 
manded" (Matt. viii. 4); " Moses said" (Mark vii. 10; 
see also Matt. xix. 8 ; Mark i. 44). In Mark xii. 26, 
Jesus asks: *' Have ye not read in the book of Moses, 
in the bush?" But in the parallel passage, Luke xx. 
37, we read " that the dead are raised, even Moses 
showed, in the bush,t when he calleth the Lord the 
God of Abraham," etc. The point of the argument is 
not the authorship of Moses, but the action of Moses. 
By calling Jehovah the God of Abraham, Moses taught 
that Abraham was alive. This is a much more forci- 

* The inquiry is limited to the Synoptic Gospels, as they alone 
provide ample material for the purpose. 

t The insertion in the Revised Version, " \w the place concerning 
the bush," is unnecessary, to say the least. " Even Moses showed 
in the bush" is the correct rendering. "Bush "was the techni- 
cal name of a section of the Pentateuch. (See Art. " Bible " in 
Hastings' Bible Dictionary.) 



;22 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

ble argument than the form in Mark," and it is fair to 
assume that **the book of Moses" is due to the evan- 
gelist. Is it not likely that there are other similar 
cases ?t 

In St. Luke Christ speaks of the Old Testament 
under the names " Moses and the prophets " (xvi. 29), 
and " the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the 
psalms " (xxiv. 44). In these cases it is evident that 
our Lord uses the term *' Moses " as the convenient, 
accepted, and universally understood title of the Pen- 
tateuch, just as He applies the term "the prophets" 
to the historical books (Joshua to Kings) and to all the 
prophetic books. Now if the usage is to be pressed so 
far that when He uses *' Moses " as a designation of the 
Pentateuch, He at the same time pronounces it as His 
judgment that Moses was the author of the books so 
designated, then we must hold that all the books called 
prophets are really prophetic books, so that Joshua, 
with its long catalogue of cities assigned to the tribes, 
is not a historical book, but a prophecy. Moreover, 
since He applies the term' ''psalms" to the collection 
of books called the Kethubim or Hagiographa, by the 
same authority we shall have to hold that all the writ- 
ings in this varied collection, even Daniel and Chron- 

* The parallel passage in Matt. xxii. 31 has no reference to 
Moses : " Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by 
God?" 

t See Sanday, " Bampton Lectures on Inspiration," p. 407. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 23 

icles, are psalms.* It appears, then, that the appeal 
to our Lord's authority proves too much. 

Only once does our Lord connect the Psalms with 
David, and that can only be claimed to show the 
Davidic authorship of a particular Psalm (ex.). There 
are some who might be willing, on evidence, to believe 
that no other psalm was written by David. But they 
cannot give up the Davidic authorship of this psalm. 
The passage quoting Psalm ex. is found in all three 
Synoptics, Matt. xxii. 43, Mark xii. 36, Luke xx, 42, 
and in substantially the same words. If we look 
at the passages superficially it might seem that 
Jesus proved that Christ was not the Son of 
David; it might also be said that He proved that 
David did not Avrite the Psalm ; for that is the other 
alternative. Either David did not call Christ Lord, 
or else Christ is not David's son; these are the two 
horns of the dilem.ma which the critical Pharisees 
had to grapple with. Now our Lord's argument is not 
based upon His belief in the Davidic authorship of this 

'*' It is held by many that Jesus does not apply the terms prophets 
and psalms in a general, but only in a limited, sense. That is, by 
" prophets," He means only the prophetic books, and by " psalms," 
only the book of Psalms. See Ryle's " Canon of the Old Testa- 
ment," p. I5f. There is no evidence that the Old Testament 
canon was finally fixed in the time of Christ ; yet it is quite possi- 
ble that by " psalms " He refers to the varied collection in the 
third part of the Hebrew canon, whether its limits were definitely 
fixed or not. 



24 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Psalm, but upon the Pharisees' behef in that opinion.* 
The validity of the argument requires the Pharisaic 
assumption that David wrote the Psalm, and requires 
nothing else whatever.f In another case our Lord 
quotes from a Psalm, saying merely that it is '*in 
the Scriptures " (Matt. xxi. 42). 

We observe, then, that our Lord uses precisely the 
same terminology for the Scriptures as the people of 

*See Peters' " Christ's Treatment of the Old Testament," J. B. 
L., 1896, p. 103. 

fThe writer does not wish to be understood here as contending 
that David was not the author of that Psalm, but only that the ev- 
idence for the Davidic authorship must be found elsewhere than in 
our Lord's use. It may be added, as a matter of interest, that 
very few modern critics ascribe the Psalm to David. Even so 
conservative a writer as Driver expresses his view thus : " This 
Psalm, though it may be ancient, can hardly have been composed 
by David. If read without praejudicium, it produces the irresist- 
ible impression of having been written, not by a king with refer- 
ence to an invisible, spiritual Being, standing above him as his su- 
perior,but by a prophet with reference to the theocratic king " (see 
L. O. T.^ p. 384, note, where the reasons for his conclusion are 
given at length). Sanday says, "A Psalm is quoted as David's 
which, whatever its true date, it seems difficult to believe really 
came from him" ("Inspiration," p. 409). Orelli, like Ewald, 
holds that the Psalm is Davidic, in the sense of belonging to the 
Davidic age, but having David as the subject, not as the author. 
He calls the Psalm a "prophetic message to David" (" O. T. 
Prophecy," p. 153). Bishop EUicott's little book, " Christus Com- 
probatur," is a polemic against modern criticism, the base of his 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 25 

His time."^ He employed terms which are in common 
use still as being convenient. Modern critics speak oi 
the Mosaic Law, and of the Davidic Psalms without 
meaning that Moses was the author of the Law or 
David of the Psalms. Our Lord might cite a passage 
of the Pentateuch as a saying- of Moses, without pro- 
nouncing a judgment /r<? or ^<?;2 on any critical ques- 
tion. 

His custom in this matter is the same as in other 
matters. In all things connected with the physical world 
He uses the phraseology of His time. Not one of the 
great discoveries in any science, so important for the 
welfare of the race, was ever hinted at by Him. He 
rises out of His generation only when He deals with 
things moral and spiritual, and then at once we find 
that '' never man spake like this man." It is difificult 
to believe that our Lord came into this world to teach 
things man can find out himself. He came to reveal 
truth which was beyond man's natural powers. Critical 
and scientific questions were far removed from the 

attack being the authority of Christ and His Apostles. In regard 
to Psalm ex. he argues that if the author had not been David, some 
of the Pharisees would have known it (p. i75f.). This argument 
assumes that the Jews, several hundred years after the poem was 
written, had absolute knowledge as to the author. But there is 
no ground to justify such an assumption. 

*See Matt. xix. 7; xxii. 24; Mark x. 4; xii. 19 (where the 
Jews refer to the Law as " Moses"). 



26 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

sphere of His mission or of His interest. Our Lord 
seems to have avoided questions which did not belong 
to the sphere of His mission as the Saviour of men In 
regard to things indifferent, He conformed to the usage 
and thoughts of His time. Against John Baptist's 
protest, He insisted upon baptism (Matt. iii. I4f). 
But whenever His higher work was in question, He 
did not hesitate to take direct issue with Jewish tra- 
ditions. 

It seems strange, then, that any one should couple the 
divinity of Christ with a particular critical conclusion. 
Many people find it perfectly easy to believe fully in 
the Incarnation and at the same time in the results of 
modern criticism. To make the Incarnation depend- 
ent upon traditional views of the Scriptures may prove 
to be building one's house upon the sand. It is cer- 
tain that such a dependence has often proved perilous 
to faith. If one really feels that criticism and the In- 
carnation are inseparably connected, he might come to 
feel more certain of the criticism than of the Incarna- 
tion, and so make shipwreck of his faith. The doc- 
trine of the Incarnation should be built upon the 
strongest grounds, not upon the weakest; upon the 
known facts recorded in the New Testament, not upon 
the Jewish critical conclusions in regard to the Old 
Testament. 

The undivided Catholic Church has been wise enough 
not to confuse unrelated things. Her doctrine of the 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 27 

Scriptures leaves little to be desired. The historic 
creeds only require belief in inspiration, " who spake 
by the prophets." The Sixth Article of Religion of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church is wholly admirable, 
though it takes the distinctly Protestant position that 
'' Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to 
salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor 
may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any 
man, that it should be believed as an article of the 
Faith." It defines the limits of the canon, but does not 
pass judgment upon a single question of the higher 
criticism. 

Now it is nowhere read in Scripture that Moses is 
the author of the book of Genesis, nor may it in any 
way be proved thereby; therefore the Mosaic author- 
ship, whether true or false, is not an article of the 
faith. It is nowhere read in Scripture, nor may it be 
proved thereby, that Isaiah is the author of the whole 
of the first of the ''Four Prophets the greater"; 
therefore it is not to be required of any man as an ar- 
ticle of the faith. Prof. Sayce, in the preface to his 
recent "Early History of the Hebrews," says that he 
accepts whatever the Church holds, but that he knows 
of nothing in the Church's teaching which prevents a 
free treatment of Jewish history; and certainly he does 
treat it with a critical freedom that is surprising, in 
view of his many recent assaults on the higher critics. 

The Anglican Church has done more than merely 



28 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

stand out of the way of criticism. This Ecclesia docpns 
has spoken through the highest authority — the Epis- 
copate of the Anglican Communion. However high 
or low may be one's ecclesiastical views, he will highly 
respect an utterance of the noble body of Bishops gath- 
ered in the Lambeth Conference. This body, at its 
session in 1897, issued this declaration in re the higher 
criticism : 

'' The critical study of the Bible by competent schol- 
ars is essential to the maintenance in the Church of a 
healthy faith. That faith is already in serious danger 
which refuses to face questions that may be raised 
either on the authority or the genuineness of any part 
of the Scriptures that have come down to us. Such 
refusal creates painful suspicion in the minds of man}^ 
whom Vv'e have to teach, and v/ill weaken the strength 
of our own conviction of the truth that God has re- 
vealed to us. A faith which is always or often at- 
tended by a secret fear that we dare not inquire lest 
inquiry should lead us to results inconsistent with what 
we believe, is already infected with a disease which 
may soon destroy it. But all inquiry is attended with 
a danger on the other side unless it be protected by 
the guard of reverence, confidence, and patience. It 
is quite true that there have been instances where in- 
quiry has led to doubt, and, ultimately, to infidelity. 
But the best safeguard against such a peril lies in that 
deep reverence which never fails to accompany real 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 29 

faith. The central object of Christian faith must al- 
ways be the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The test 
which St. Paul gives of the possession of the Holy 
Spirit is the being- able to say that Jesus is the Lord. 
If a man can say with his whole heart and soul that 
Jesus is the Lord, he stands on a rock which nothing 
can shake. Read in the light of this conviction, the 
Bible, beginning with man made in the image of God, 
and rising with ever-increasing clearness of revelation 
to God taking on Him the form of man, and through- 
out it all showing in every page the sense of the 
Divine Presence inspiring what is said, will not fail to 
exert its power over the souls of men till the Lord 
comes again. This power will never really be affected 
by any critical study whatever. The report of the 
committee deals, in our judgment, temperately and 
wisely with the subject, and we think all Christian 
people will find it worthy of careful consideration." 

Let the timid student read also what is said in the 
report of the special committee on this subject in 
the Report of Conference, page 63. As the Bishops 
say, '' If a man can say with his whole heart and 
soul that Jesus is the Lord, he stands on a rock which 
nothing can shake." The only question which is vital 
in critical results is whether they are true or false ; 
and the higher critic to-day asks no favor save a dis- 
passionate review of the evidence. By this he is 
quite willing that his contentions should stand or fall. 



30 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

In the last chapter I shall try to show that the 
acceptance of the results of criticism does not in- 
terfere with a full belief in the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures. To those who are likely to be troubled by the 
critical discussions in the chapters following, I would 
suggest that they read that chapter before the others. 

If one believe that the result of the higher critical 
study of the Scriptures is an error, let him, at all 
events, not call it a dangerous error without consid- 
ering the force of the words of Jefferson that "error 
is without danger so long as truth is left free to com- 
bat it." 



CHAPTER II. 



©eneral argument againat tbe IDaliMt? of 
Critical lRe6ult0^ 

THERE are certain considerations of a general 
character which are sometimes supposed to 
invalidate the results of modern criticism as 
a whole. There are three of these which will be briefly- 
discussed. 

I. It has again and again been stated that arch- 
aeological discoveries have disproved many critical 
conclusions, and are likely to disprove a great many- 
more. The critic is warned that the spade is his 
greatest enemy, and told to tremble before its achieve- 
ments. Let it be emphasized at the outset that the 
higher critic is in quest of the truth. He has no 
theory v/hich he is anxious to maintain. He has had 
to abandon hosts of theories in the course of his in- 
vestigations, and is ready to abandon more as soon 
as the evidence requires it. All the light which 
archaeology is able to furnish is welcome to none 
more than to him. 

One might ask then why there has been such a 
vigorous controversy between the higher critics and 



32 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

the archaeologists. The English Sayce and the 
German Hommel have been unsparing in their attacks 
on criticism, and the other side has not been alto- 
gether silent, though, so far as I have observed, the 
critics have preserved a more, equable and seemly 
temper. The critics have been entirely ready to ac- 
cept the facts discovered by archaeologists, but they 
have not always been willing to accept the conclusions 
drawn from those facts by the archaeologists. 

The critics are often charged with building big theo- 
ries upon a scanty basis of fact; but they could scarcely 
exceed the feats of some archaeologists in this partic- 
ular. It must not be supposed, however, that there is 
any necessary conflict between archaeology and crit- 
icism. These two disciplines are naturally allies, and 
criticism must look to archaeology as an aid, and, it 
may be, a corrective. But it must be remembered 
that archaeological facts have to be interpreted as well 
as critical facts, and there is inevitably considerable 
difference of opinion in the one case as in the other. 

Hommel, in the preface to his '' Ancient Hebrew 
Tradition,"* thus indicates his belief in the overthrow 
of critical conclusions : " The monuments speak with 

*I quote from the English translation published by S. P, C. K., 
1897. It has been stated in print {Expository Thnes, January- 
February, 1898; The Nation, October 20, 1897; see also Driver 
L. O. T.^ p. xvii., note) that the translation is in many places inac- 
curate, and the inaccuracies in the interest of greater conservatism. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 33 

no faltering tongue, and already I seem to see signs of 
the approach of a new era, in which men will be able 
to brush aside the cobweb theories of the so-called 
* higher critic' of the Pentateuch, and, leaving such 
old-fashioned errors behind them, attain to a clearer 
perception of the real facts " (p. viii ). I have read 
Hommel's book through with a great deal of interest 
and profit, but I have not seen a single fact which in 
the least invalidates the sober conclusions of the 
higher criticism, and not much to disprove even the 
conclusions of the most radical scholars. On the other 
hand, I have seen much which supports critical results. 

Prof. Sayce endeavored to make his *' Higher Crit- 
icism and the Verdict of the Monuments," pubHshed 
in 1894, a via media between the higher critics and the 
apologists. He repeatedly takes the former to task 
for their arrogant assumptions, and declares that the 
spade has set many of their theories at naught. But he 
falls into error by failing to make proper distinctions. 
By higher critics he means only the most radical 
school, who base their conclusions too largely upon 
mere conjecture. The great body of modern higher 
critics do not belong to this class, but only go as far 
in reconstructive theories as there are facts to warrant. 
Sayce himself is a higher critic of this class. 

One of the best known and ablest critics of this class 
in the English-speaking world is Prof. Driver, of Oxford. 
His " Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testa- 



34 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

ment" was first published in 1891. This work at once 
became a classic in Old Testament study. The sixth 
and enlarged edition appeared in 1897. The work is 
well known to be the production of a thorough-going 
higher critic of the modern school. Yet the writer was 
careful not to allow his theories to run beyond his facts. 
Now Driver reviewed Sayce's book referred to above 
in the Co7ttemporary Review (March, 1894, p. 408ff.), 
and declared that if he accepted every fact alleged by 
Sayce, it would only require him to modify three minute 
and unimportant statements in his Introduction.* This 
fact is cited because it is a fair specimen of the way 
in which the monuments have demolished critical con- 
clusions or made them old-fashioned. We can scarcely 
rest content, however, with general conclusions, but 
will look at some of the detailed instances in which 
archaeology and criticism have come into contact. 

* It may be well to state in Driver's own words just what 
these three points are : " I should have to refer Gen. x. — not 
back to Moses, but— to a later author than I had supposed to be 
necessary; I should have to follow Prof. Cheyne in placing the 
short prophecy of Obadiah in the post-exilic period; and instead of 
attributing Jer. l.-li. 58 to a prophet who wrote ' no very long 
time before the fall of Babylon ' (b C. 538), I should have to assign 
it to a prophet who wrote definitely during the reign of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, which ended B.C. 561. In no other respect is a single argu- 
ment or conclusion in my work affected unfavorably by the facts which 
Prof. Sayce has adduced, while in several cases they are materially 
confirmed by them." See also L. O. T.^ p. xviii., quoted below (p. 44). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 35 

The main object here is to show that archaeology 
has not banished criticism, and is not likely to. Hence, 
it is necessary to dwell chiefly on the cases in which 
archaeology does not substantiate the traditional view 
of the Scriptures. It would be much pleasanter to 
treat the other side, to show how this science has con- 
firmed Biblical statements. But the object in view 
would not thereby be gained. 

Yet the opportunity must be taken to say that the 
discoveries of Oriental archaeology have been of ines- 
timable value to Biblical study. Facts which stood 
alone, and not always unchallenged, have been mar- 
vellously confirmed. For example, in the twentieth 
chapter of Isaiah we are told that Sargon, the king of 
Assyria, sent Tartan to take Ashdod. Until the 
cuneiform monuments were dug up and deciphered, 
this was all that was known of Sargon. Naturally, 
there were some who were unduly influenced by the 
silence of such records of Assyrian history as were 
available, and doubted whether there was any such 
king. But we have now at hand inscriptions describ- 
ing the campaigns of this king, and, among them, a 
description of this very campaign against Ashdod.^ 

*A translation of Sargon's account of his campaign may be 
found in Schrader's " Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testa- 
ment," II., 90 f. In his annals for his eleventh year (711 B.C.) we 
find the brief record, "War against Azuri of Ashdod and conquest 
of that town." 



36 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Such discoveries are always a boon to the critical stu- 
dent of the Bible. 

But the discoveries have often required us to correct 
the statements in the Bible, even while in the main they 
confirmed them. After the disaster to his army in the 
west, B.C. 701, " Sennacherib, the king of Assyria," we 
read in II. Kings xix. 36f., '^returned and dwelt at 
Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worship- 
ping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech 
and Sharezer smote him with the sword; and they es- 
caped into the land of Ararat. And Esar-haddon, his 
son, reigned in his stead." Now it is not distinctly 
stated that the assassination of the king took place 
immediately upon his return to Nineveh; but it is a 
natural inference, and was generally so understood un- 
til the monuments furnished the necessary correction — 
in this case a correction not of the Biblical statement, 
but of the received interpretation of the statement. 
As a matter of fact, however, Sennacherib was not 
murdered for at least twenty years after his campaign. 
Moreover, there is no known Assyrian deity called 
Nisroch, and Sayce himself has pointed out that the 
order of events is quite reversed here, Hezekiah's sick- 
ness (II. Kings XX.) having been ten years earlier than 
Sennacherib's campaign (H. C. M., p. 446). 

Another interesting correction which we are able to 
make from the monuments of Assyria is in connection 
with the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. In 11. Kings xvii. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 37 

3flf. we read that Shalmanezer invaded Israel and re- 
duced King Hoshea to servitude. The passage goes 
on to describe Hoshea's rebellion, and the three years' 
siege of Samaria, which ended in the capture of the city, 
Except in verse 3, the name of the Assyrian king is not 
mentioned ; the title used is simply "the king of Assyria." 
This leads naturally to the conclusion that Shalmanezer 
was the king who reduced Samaria. As a matter of fact, 
we now know from the monuments that Shalmanezer was 
succeeded by Sargon during this siege, and that it was 
the latter who led the captive Israelites to Assyria. 

One of the most interesting figures in the Old Tes- 
tament is Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blessed 
Abraham after his successful campaign against Ched- 
orlaomer and his allies, and to whom Abraham paid a 
tithe of the booty (Gen. xiv. i8ff.) We have Httle 
knowledge of this personage. He appears and disap- 
pears very strangely and without any apparent relation 
to the events. It will scarcely seem strange, therefore, 
that the historicity of this personage has been often dis- 
puted. We only know that he v/as both priest and 
king. The Epistle to the Hebrews contains an elab- 
orated version of the story: "being first, by interpreta- 
tion, king of righteousness, and then also king of Sa- 
lem, which is, king of peace; without father, without 
mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning 
of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of 
God, abideth a priest continually " (vii. 2f.). 



38 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Now it is true that Melchizedek entered into the 
Jewish Messianic conception (Psalm ex. 4; Heb. v. 6); 
but it is uncertain on what material the writer of the 
Epistle based his statements, so far as they go beyond 
Genesis. It maybe doubted whether he does not am- 
plify the original narrative from his conceptions of the 
Messiah. At all events, the statement that ''he was 
without beginning of days or end of Hfe " could not 
apply to the original Melchizedek any more than the 
statement that '* he was without father or mother." 

But Prof. Sayce has repeatedly asserted that he has 
vindicated the historical character of Melchizedek 
(H. C. M., p. 177). One must indeed wish that he had 
been able to make this matter clear ; but before ac- 
cepting his conclusions we must examine the evidence 
upon which his vindication is based. 

In one of the famous Tell-el-Amarna letters, Abd- 
hiba, called by Sayce Ebed-Tob, vassal king of Jerusa- 
lem, thus writes of himself: '* Behold, this country 
Jerusalem ; neither my father nor my mother gave it 
to me ; the strong arm of the king gave it to me." "^ 
The meaning of this passage is apparently plain ; the 
prince has occasion repeatedly to protest his adher- 
ence to his Egyptian overlord. The basis of his 
loyalty is the fact that his throne was not inherited, 
but (like that of the Jewish Zedekiah) the gift of the 

* Letter No. 180. I quote these letters from Winckler's transla- 
tion, "The Tell-el-Amarna Letters," New York and Berlin, 1896. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 



39 



king-. In other words, he had been placed on the 
throne by the king of Egypt ; therefore, there was the 
best reason for his loyalty. He says, accordingly, in 
another message to his sovereign (Letter No. i8i) : 
'' It is slander which they have heaped upon me. Be- 
hold, I am no prince, I am a deputy of my lord, the 
king ; behold, I am an officer of the king ; I am one who 
brings tribute to the king. Neither my father nor my 
mother, but the strong arm of the king established me 
over my father s territory^ (Italics here and below 
mine.) Still again, he says : " Some one has slan- 
dered me before my lord, the king (saying), *Abd-hiba 
has revolted from his lord, the king.' Behold, neither 
my father nor my mother appointed me in this place. 
The strong arm of the king inaugurated me in my 
father's territory. Why (then) should I commit an 
offence against my lord, the king?" (Letter No. 179). 
This last passage looks quite different in Sayce's 
translation: "Behold, neither my father nor my 
mother have exalted me in this place ; the prophecy 
(or, perhaps, arm) of the mighty king has caused me 
to enter the house of my father." Upon such a trans- 
lation Sayce builds his theory thus : " The mighty 
king is distinguished from the king of Egypt": this 
king was the king of Salem ; he was without father or 
mother ; because the prophecy had miade him a king, 
he was a priest ; and because Abd-hiba (orEbed-Tob) 
was such, Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem, was 



40 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

a historical personage (H. C. M., p. 175). With such 
processes as this, it would be possible to prove or dis- 
prove anything. Winckler's translation is quite cor- 
rect. *' Mighty " probably qualifies arm, not king ; 
there is no such word as prophecy or priest in the let- 
ters ; and even from Sayce's rendering it is clear that 
Abd-hiba's father had reigned in Jerusalem before him. 
How else could he say that **the king [who is clearly 
the king of Egypt] established me over my father's 
territory " ? 

But even if Sayce's translation were correct, it would 
be far from " vindicating the historical character of 
Melchizedek." There is no reason to suppose that 
Melchizedek did not inherit his throne ; and this poor 
Egyptian vassal, begging piteously for troops to save 
his city from the enemy, and perpetually pleading his 
innocence of the intrigues with which he is charged, is 
a very different personage from the priest-king who 
pronounces the blessing of 'El 'Elyon upon the vic- 
torious Abraham. The story of Melchizedek may or 
may not be historical ; but archaeology has not yet 
furnished anything to aid the higher critic in deter- 
mining the question.^ 

* Hommel's treatment is quite different from Sayce's. The for- 
mer holds that the narrative in Gen. xiv. lyff. is composite, one 
source saying that the king of Sodom came out to meet Abraham, 
the other that it was Melchizedek, the king of Salem. The part 
about the king of Salem is a late interpolation. Melchizedek re- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 41 

This case has been dwelt upon to show how frail a 
weapon is confidently relied upon to overthrow critical 
results. It may seem an extreme case ; but there are 
enough others of a like kind. The evidence relied 
upon to prove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch 
is quite as weak. It has been denied that Moses could 
have written the Pentateuch, because such a literary 
production could not have come from the early age of 
Israel, an age lacking literary culture or models. This 
argument is indeed weak, but not weaker than that by 
which it is controverted. 

The contention is made that we have these Tell-el- 
Amarna letters, many of them written in Canaan about 
1400 B.C.; we know that there was a vast literature in 
Babylonia and Egypt before this time, and that letters 
were exchanged between the kings of these empires in 
the fifteenth century B.C.; there was a city in Canaan 
called Kiriath-Sepher — "Book-town" — or, probably, 

fused to take any of the booty, lest Abraham should claim the 
credit of enriching him; that is, Melchizedek, not Abraham, is the 
speaker in v. 22f. This is quite a different story. Hommel holds 
that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews knew a version of 
the Melchizedek story which contained an added clause, such as, 
"who had not received the kingdom from his father and mother." 
He gives the translation, " arm of the mighty king " (not, however, 
*' prophecy "), but holds that the mighty king was an " earthly po- 
tentate," that is, the king of the Hittites ("Ancient Hebrew Tra- 
ditions " p. I49ff.). But the context shows that the king, whether 
mighty or not, was the king of Egypt. 



42 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Kiriath-Sopher — " City of the Scribe." Now, these 
are facts which no higher critic for a moment doubts. 
But how far do they go to prove the Mosaic authorship 
of the Pentateuch ? They do not give any support 
whatever to the behef that he did write it, and they do 
not go very far to show that it was even possible for 
Moses to be the author. 

For how was Moses to get access to all this litera- 
ture of Babylonia ? How were the freed slaves, living 
as wandering nomads in the wilderness, to come into 
contact with this culture? If Moses had any literary 
culture at all, and the writer does not doubt that 
he had, he got it at the Egyptian court ; and all 
that we know about that is in the Bible. Archae- 
ology has so far failed to add a single particle of 
knowledge on this subject. Still, Sayce does not scru- 
ple to say: " The archaeological facts support the tra- 
ditional rather than the so-called ' critical ' view of the 
age and authority of the Pentateuch, and tend to show 
that we have in it not only a historical monument 
whose statements can be trusted, but also what is sub- 
stantially a work of the great Hebrew legislator him- 
self" (" Patriarchal Palestine," p. iv.). The fact is, that 
archaeology has not yet produced a single fact which 
has any legitimate bearing upon the authorship of the 
Pentateuch. 

We may well consider the force of some words 
spoken by the Rev. Dr. Peters at the Church Congress 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 43 

at Norfolk in 1896. He was speaking about the argu- 
ment from the civihzation Avhich must have prevailed 
in Palestine. " The difficulty that we encounter is 
this : that while we find a people before the Hebrews 
that possessed a civilization ; while v/e find a people 
in Egypt that possessed a civilization ; while we find 
a people in Babylonia that possessed a civilization ; 
while we find a people in the north of Syria that pos- 
sessed a civilization ; while we find a people in Asia 
Minor that possessed a civilization — we have, unfor- 
tunately, no records of a similar civilization among the 
Hebrews. It is precisely that for which we must look. 
We are not yet in a position to say what they did 
know, nor what they could know." It need only be 
added, to guard against possible misconception, that 
Dr, Peters here refers to the conditions among the 
Hebrews. This statement is true, that so far modern 
archaeology has not thrown a single ray of light upon 
early Hebrew civilization. 

It is a matter of great regret that archaeological light 
on the Bible has so far all come from outside of Pales- 
tine. There are letters, it is true, which were written 
from Palestine to Egypt, but from a period before the 
Conquest. The spade has accomplished wonderfully 
great results in Assyria, Babylonia and Egypt, but 
almost no digging has been undertaken in Palestine. 
Work has been done at Jerusalem, but so far has not 
produced results useful in critical study. Lachish was 



44 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

partly excavated, but the results have been disappoint- 
ing, as in these cases no significant inscriptions have been 
found,* or anything else which throws much light on 
Hebrew history. Can it be that the cities of Palestine 
did not contain such imperishable literary monuments 
as Egypt and Babylonia? No; there must be priceless 
treasures under the soil of Palestine, which will help to 
clear up perplexing difificulties in the Old Testament. 
Why has so much money and labor been expended in 
excavating in other countries, and so little in the Ploly 
Land itself ? No one more earnestly longs for the 
light which the spade may disclose than the higher 
critic. 

This section may fittingly conclude with a statement 
from Driver: " The attempts to refute the conclusions 
of criticism by means of archaeology have signally 
failed. The archaeological discoveries of recent years 
have indeed been of singular interest and value; they 
have thrown a flood of light, sometimes as surprising 
as it was unexpected, upon many a previously dark and 
unknown region of antiquity. But, in spite of the in- 
genious hypotheses which have been framed to prove 
the contrary, they have revealed nothing which is in 
conflict with the generally accepted conclusions of the 
critics " (L. O. T.^ p. xviii.). What archaeology may 

*One tablet was found by Mr. Bliss at Lachish, but it belonged, 
strange to say, to the Tell-el-Amarna collection, and had no bear- 
ing on the Hebrews. 



THE MODERN- POINT OF VIEW. 45 

discover in the future, it is idle to guess; but if that 
noble science shall reveal anything- which makes criti- 
cal opinions untenable, it is safe to predict that the 
critics will be the first to acknowledge it, and the 
warmest in their welcome of the new facts. 

II. There is another general ground upon which it is 
often claimed that the results of the higher criticism 
are invalidated — the disagreement among the critics 
themselves. Prof. Green, of Princeton, has for years 
never wearied of assailing the modern criticism of the 
Old Testament. The divergency of view of the critics 
has been one of his favorite weapons of attack. He 
has been followed in this course by many others. Let 
the higher critics get together, they say, and reach a 
unanimity of opinion; when they offer us the results 
about which they are thus agreed, it will be time 
enough for us to consider whether they are to be ac- 
cepted or not. It will be well for every student of 
Old Testament criticism to consider carefully the force 
of this argument. 

Now difference of opinion may be parallel or succes- 
sive, that is, the difference of opinion may be among 
critics of successive generations, or among critics of 
the same date. At present, only the disagreement 
among contemporaries is to be considered. It must be 
confessed that the value of expert testimony — and the 
testimony in question is clearly of that character — 
does depend in part upon unanimity of opinion, at least 



46 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

its value to the one who is not an expert does. If two 
experts testify in court, and their opinions are hope- 
lessly at variance, the value of the testimony is z^// to the 
jury, whatever it may be to others; so if it is true that 
critical opinion is hopelessly divided against itself, that 
kingdom cannot stand. The only question, therefore, 
is whether the critics are so at variance as to invalidate 
their results. 

No one who has read largely in this field can for a 
moment doubt that there is a great difference of opin- 
ion among the higher critics. It would be easy to fill 
a much larger volume than the present with illustra- 
tions of this fact. But in all fairness we must admit 
that before we draw any conclusions as to the effect 
of these differences, we must consider their character. 
Such a consideration seems never to have entered into 
the calculation of those who use the divergent views to 
bring criticism into contempt. The point to consider is 
whether the difference is about matters that are vital 
or not. An examination of all the vast mass of illus- 
trations which could be gathered would show that, as 
a rule, the differences of opinion are not about matters 
that are of real importance. About the main conten- 
tions of criticism the verdict is unanimous, however 
great variety of opinion there may be in minor points. 
A few illustrations will make this clear. The number 
could be multiplied indefinitely. 

Take the question of the Pentateuch. The burning 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 47 

question (considering now only literary problems) is 
this: Was the Pentateuch written or compiled by 
Moses, or some other ? Any one who finds insuperable 
difficulties in the assumption of the Mosaic authorship 
finds himself at once in the large company of modern 
critics. And modern criticism is absolutely unanimous 
in its verdict that the Pentateuch in its present form 
originated in an age long subsequent to Moses."^ 

The agreement of the critics, indeed, goes much fur- 
ther than this. It is held by all that the Pentateuch 
(excluding Deuteronomy) is the result of the compila- 
tion mainly of three documents, the earliest of which 
was written about 800 B.C.; and in the main the critics 
agree as to the lines of cleavage. Sometimes it is ad- 
mitted to be difficult or impossible to make more than 
a tentative separation, but this difficulty does not alter 
the unanimity of opinion that a separation must be 
made before the original form is reached. There is 
considerable difference of view as to the date of these 
primary documents. The Jahvistic narrative is dated 
from 853 B.C. to 750 B.C ; but the traditionalist will find 
no more satisfaction in one of these dates than in the 
other. It matters but little to him what the date, if the 
writing be taken away from the age of Moses. The 
agreement of the critics is complete on the main ques- 
tion. 

* There is, however, Mosaic material incorporated in the Penta- 
teuch. See p. 151, 



48 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

If we take the analysis of the book of Isaiah, the 
same result is reached. The vital question— again 
considering only literary problems, as there is indeed 
a more vital question than this, which will be consid- 
ered later — is whether all the prophecies in that book 
are from the pen of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, or whether 
some of them came from other prophets. Unless one 
holds that the book is a unit, there is little consolation 
in considering whether the parts which belong to 
other prophets than Isaiah are to be divided into niany 
parts or not. There is no modern critic to-day who 
holds to the unity of this book. He may believe that 
cc. xl-lxvi., commonly called the second Isaiah, is a 
single prophecy or a collection of prophecies from many 
voices, but he holds — and all his fellows agree with 
him — that these prophecies belong to the exilic period 
or later. The verdict of criticism is again unanimous 
in regard to the main question. 

There is yet considerable difference of opinion in re- 
gard to the date of the so-called Priest-code, of which 
more will be said in a subsequent chapter. Some still 
adhere to the view of the late Prof. Dillmann that it 
belongs to the latter part of the pre-exiHc age; others, 
and they are fast getting to be a large majority, hold 
to the post-exilic origin of this writing. One may be 
in great doubt which date will ultimately prevail, but 
he may be sure that this document will never again be 
placed in the age of Moses, 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 49 

As a general thing the greatest difference of opinion 
appears in the minute analysis, where confessedly the 
data are often not sufficient for more than tentative 
results. It often happens that there is unanimity of 
opinion in regard to the smallest points because the 
ground of the analysis is sufficient. Thus in the story 
of the Flood the last few words of Gen.vii. 16, are unan- 
imously assigned to J, the symbol for the Jahvistic 
writer, for in the few words '' and Jahveh shut him in " 
— only three words in Hebrew — there are two decisive 
indications of J : the name Jahveh, and the anthropo- 
morphic conception of God. But in other places the 
grounds are less sure, and critical opinion consequently 
divergent. Thus while every modern student of the Old 
Testament recognizes Cheyne's masterful work on 
Isaiah, many will be very slow to accept the analysis 
he has made in his Introduction and in the Polychrome 
Bible. Ingenious and scholarly as his conclusions 
show him to be, he has carried his opinions far beyond 
the reliable data, and many question marks will have 
to be used in dealing with his work. 

III. Sometimes still more hope for the fall of criti- 
cism is found in the divergent views as one era of 
criticism gives way to another. It is frequently stated 
that this criticism is only a wave, which will soon pass 
away. One generation reaches results radically differ- 
ent from those of another, and soon the whole thing 
will pass away, like the Tubingen criticism of the New 



50 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Testament. This kind of objection is not so easily 
treated, because it appeals to the future. It leaves the 
inquirer in the condition of the Jews of Jehoiakim's 
time, when " Hananiah the prophet " said that the yoke 
of Babylon would be broken within two years, and 
Jeremiah the prophet said it would not (Jer. xxviii.). 
There seemed to be little to do but wait for the two 
years to expire. Still it would have been possible to 
determine the question, if the people had considered 
these things : With which of these prophets is the wish 
most likely to be the father of the thought ? Which 
has shown himself in the past the more accurate in 
foreseeing the course of events? Upon what ground 
is the assertion of each based ? 

So perhaps the means are not lacking for the one 
who is able to discern the signs of the times to know 
whether Old Testament criticism is likely to be so 
short-lived as many seem to suppose and wish. The 
writer ventures to express the hope that the present 
predominance of literary criticism in Old Testament 
study may soon give way to more important matters. 
The great object of Old Testament study for the Chris- 
tian is the discovery of moral and spiritual truth. But 
the literary problems must be solved before such study 
can secure its rightful place, because it must be 
built upon a solid foundation. The history of Israel 
and the history of the Jewish religion must be re- 
built on a reconstructed basis before there will be 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 51 

a sure ground for the highest criticism of all. But 
the prediction may be safely ventured that this recon- 
struction will go on to completion, and to general 
acceptance, and that we shall never drop back to the 
basis of a half century ago. 

For the present, Old Testament criticism rests upon 
an entirely different basis from that of the New Tes- 
tament, which quickly passed away. The New Testa- 
ment criticism was in the main subjective, and the 
moment acute scholars began to investigate the alle- 
gations of the Tubingen school their hopeless weak- 
ness appeared, and they have given place to a more 
sober conclusion. But the Old Testament criticism rests 
upon a solid basis of facts. Every point in its progres- 
sive development has been contested by the ablest schol- 
arship with the result that many who had entered the 
list as assailants have come out on the other side. The 
late Prof. Franz DeHtzsch was a notable instance. For 
years he stood against the tendency of his age. But 
always studying as a scholar, the apologi'st never get- 
ting entirely the upper hand, in his ripe old age the 
result of his own investigations compelled him to ac- 
cept the main results against which he had so long 
contended. 

The higher criticism of the Old Testament has been 
a good while in the field. The first complete analysis 
of the Pentateuch was made by Astruc in 1753, with a 
conservative interest. There have been many changes 



52 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

from that day to this, but all in the direction of a pro- 
gressive development. Very likely the pendulum will 
now and again swing too far, but it will quickly come 
back. There have been ample time and ample effort 
to show that the results of criticism are invalid ; but this 
has not yet been done. No one has changed his views 
backwards, and the acceptance of these results has gone 
on with notable rapidity, until to-day the number of 
scholars who adhere to the traditional views is very 
small. The opponents have been active, but they have 
failed to stop the inevitable course of events. It is 
well that we turn our attention to the basis of facts 
upon which its conclusions rest, and see whether it 
has sufficient to justify its verdicts. For there is no sign 
on the horizon which the most far-sighted can see to 
justify the belief that the higher critics of the Old 
Testament have labored in vain. 



CHAPTER III 



^be Ibcyateucb. 

I. THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY. 

THE oldest important subject of critical investi- 
gation is the Pentateuch. In modern discus- 
sions, however, we find in place of the term 
Pentateuch, Hexateuch — meaning- the first six books 
of the Bible ; for the phenomena found in the Pentateuch 
occur also in Joshua; and the book of Joshua makes 
a fitter ending for the first period of Hebrew history 
than Deuteronomy. The Hexateuch will first engage 
our attention. So much has been written on this sub- 
ject that we cannot hope to produce anything new; but 
for the sake of completeness this matter must be taken 
up. The investigation is best begun with this oldest 
problem of Old Testament criticism; for in this field 
the results seem most assured. Taking the simplest 
subject first, we will consider the origin of the book of 
Deuteronomy. 

To engage in such investigation in the right spirit, 
we must be students, and not apologists; we may have 
strong convictions in favor of or against the Mosaic 
authorship, but not so held that they will not yield to 
evidence. We are after facts, and a priori assumptions 



54 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

are too apt to prevent the recognition of facts when v/e 
meet them. With minds not unduly prejudiced we 
wish to ascertain what facts we have which bear upon 
the origin of this great book, and then the meaning of 
the facts we discover. Our work will not be exhaustive, 
but will be sufficient.* 

In the eighteenth year of his reign (621 B.C.), King 
Josiah gave directions to repair the temple so as to 
restore it suitably for the worship of Jehovah, which 
had been interrupted during the long period of his im- 
mediate predecessors, Manasseh and Amon. Shaphan 
was sent by the king with a message to Hilkiah the 
high priest, and returned with a statement about the 
progress of the repairs, and then added : *' Hilkiah the 
priest has delivered me a book" (II. Kings xxii. 10). 
Hilkiah's announcement to Shaphan was, ** I have 
found the book of the law in the house of Jahveh " 
{ib.^ v. 8). What book was this } 

It appears, in the first place, to have been a small 
book. Shaphan was sent to the temple on an errand 
for the king. He stopped long enough at the temple 
to read the book {ib.^ v. 8); when he returned he read 
the book aloud to the king (v. 10). Hilkiah was sum- 
moned, and, along with others, sent to Huldah the 
prophetess to ask her what the king should do. Now 

* Reference may be made to an article by the writer on " The 
Origin and Character of Deuteronomy," published in the Biblical 
IVorld oi April, 1898. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 55 

all this at least seems to have taken place in one day; 
certainly the book was read twice in one day. 

In an ordinary Hebrew Bible the Pentateuch occu- 
pies 350 pages ; this cannot be read in less than twelve 
hours. To read it aloud would take at least twenty 
hours. "^ Now Shaphan would scarcely tarry on an 
errand for the king long enough to read such a large 
book, and it could not have been read twice in one day. 
The book of Deuteronomy occupies sixty-three pages, 
and could be read aloud in about three hours and a 
half. The law proper in Deuteronomy (chaps, xii.- 
xxvi.) occupies twenty-three pages and could be read 
in one hour, or a little more. This part, therefore, is 
about as large a book as the conditions warrant. 
Driver holds that at least chaps, v.-xxvi., xxviii. must 
have been in the book which was read to the king,t 
though others have adhered to the strictly legal part, 
chaps, xii.-xxvi. Even the part assumed by Driver 
could be read in about two hours. 

In the second place, we have to consider the charac- 
ter of the book which was found. The Reformation 
ought to show this, because it was Josiah's attempt to 
put this law into effect. When Josiah sent to inquire 

* Kittel estimates twenty-three and a half hours as the least time 
in which it could be read " at a moderately quick rate " (" History 
of the Hebrews," I., p. 59). 

t See his " Deuteronomy," Introd., p. 65 ; so Addis, " Documents 
of the Hexateuch," Vol. H. 



56 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

of Huldah, he did so because he feared the awful conse- 
quence of the violation of the new law: "Great is the 
wrath of Jahveh that is kindled against us, because 
our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this 
book" (xxii. 13). 

Now, if one asks what part of the Law declares em- 
phatically God's punishment for disobedience to its 
precepts, the answer is plainly Deuteronomy. Hul- 
dah's message to the king consists largely of Deuter- 
onomic phrases : ''They have forsaken me, and have 
burned incense to other gods, that they might pro- 
voke me to anger with all the work of their hands " 
(v. 17). The king made a covenant to keep Jehovah's 
*' commandments, and his testimonies, and his stat- 
utes, with all his heart, and all his soul'' (xxiii. 3): 
these also are Deuteronomic phrases. 

The first step of the Reformation was to burn the 
vessels that were used for Baal, Asherah and the host 
of Heaven (v. 4), and in general Josiah destroyed 
everything pertaining to the worship of foreign deities; 
especially he destroyed every altar, including those at 
the high places, except that at the temple; that is, Jo- 
siah put into efTect the law that sacrifice can be offered 
only at the temple in Jerusalem. The Law in Exoduh 
distinctly provides for altars at such places as may be 
convenient (xx. 24ff.); but Deuteronomy strictly pro- 
hibits altar or sacrifice at any place save at the central 
sanctuary (xii. 5ff). It is perfectly plain that whatever 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 57 

this book of the Law v/as, the reformation of Josiah was 
an attempt to put into practice the prescriptions of 
Deuteronomy.* 

Five years before this time Jeremiah had begun his 
career as a prophet. Why the king consulted Huldah, 
who is not otherwise known, rather than Jeremiah, it 
is not easy to say. But it is certain that this new book 
of the Law produced a great impression upon the young 
seer. Moved by the command of God, he travelled 
about among the cities of Judah preaching the new 
Law (Jer. xi. 1-8). The passage just cited, in which 
this part of Jeremiah's life is described, is little more 
than a collection of Deuteronomic phrases. If one 
reads Jeremiah attentivel}^, he will find Deuteronomic 
phrases and ideas scattered all through his book.f 

The evidence all points to one conclusion, that the 
book of the Law found by Hilkiah was the book of 
Deuteronomy, in whole or in part. There follows, 
then, this inference : In the year 621 B.C., Deuteron- 

* Driver gives a list of parallel passages which shov^ the depend- 
ence of Josiah's reforms upon Deuteronomy. He supposes such 
passages as these to have chiefly impressed the king (Deut. vi. 4! , 
I4f.; xii. 2-7; xvi, 2if.; xviii. 9-15; xxviii ; "Deuteronomy," p. 
xlv., note. See also " Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian,' I , p. 490 
ff., where the history of the Reformation is told in connection with 
the laws commanding the reforms, all the laws coming from Deut- 
eronomy. 

t See the list of parallel passages in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah 
in Driver^s " Deuteronomy," p. xciii. 



58 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

omy was not an inseparable part of a book of the 
Law like the Pentateuch, but was itself called ** the 
book of the law" (II. Kings xxii. 8), "the book of the 
covenant" (xxiii. 2), "the words of this covenant" 
(Jer. xi. 2 ff.). This fixes the latest possible date of 
the book,* the terminus ad quern. Can we also fix the 
terminus a quo f If we read again the account of 
Josiah's reformation, we are struck with the evident 
fact that he had never heard of this book before, and 
in fact the people to whom it was read were equally 
ignorant of it. If the book had been lost, it had disap- 
peared so long ago that no knowledge of its contents 
had survived. 

But the book itself contains many expressions which 
throw light upon the time of its origin. First of all is 
the fact that the last chapter contains an account of 
the death of Moses. It is generally conceded that this 
passage (chap, xxxiv.) has been added by a later hand, 
though we cannot help admiring the stricter consis- 
tency of those Vi^ho, accepting the Mosaic authorship 
of the Pentateuch on the basis of external authority, 
held fast to the Mosaic authorship of this passage, too. 
But if a whole section like this is to be placed in the 
post-Mosaic age on purely internal evidence, why may 

* If only the legal part of Deuteronomy was found by Hilkiah, 
the narrative portions would be subsequent additions. Whether 
the reign of Josiah is the latest date for the whole book in its 
present form is, therefore, still a matter of doubt. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 59 

not Other parts, and, if need be, the whole book, be 
assigned to the same period for like reasons ? And 
there are reasons for doing so which it is not easy to 
resist. 

The book opens with the statement that ** Moses 
spoke these words unto all Israel on the other side of 
the Jordan." As Moses is stated to have spoken 
these words on the east of the Jordan, the writer must 
have been in the land west of the Jordan. This could 
not have been written, therefore, before the Conquest. 
We find the same expression, " on the other side of 
Jordan," used for the east of the Jordan also in i. 5, 
*' on the other side of Jordan, in the country of 
Moab" ; also in iii. 8; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49. In some 
cases the explanatory " eastward " is added. The 
same usage is regularly found in other parts of the 
Pentateuch, and in the following places in Joshua, 
where the standpoint is indisputably the region west of 
the Jordan: i. 15; ii. 10; vii. 7; ix. 10; xii. i; xiii. 8; 
xxii. 4 ; xxiv. 8. 

On the other hand, the same expression is used for 
the west of the Jordan in these passages : Deut. iii. 20, 
25 ; xi. 30, in speeches of Moses which are said to have 
been spoken in the land of Moab, hence the use is ap- 
propriate ; also in Josh. v. i ; xii. 7 (with the addition 
" westward ") ; ix. i (where the place is further de- 
fined, so as to avoid the natural inference that east of 
the Jordan was meant). It would seem clear, therefore, 



6o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

either that Deuteronomy was not written until after 
the Conquest, or that these passages are later inser- 
tions. 

There are several expressions in the book which 
point clearly to the same conclusion. " The sons of 
Esau . . . destroyed them [the Horites] from be- 
fore them, and dwelt in their stead ; as Israel did unto 
the land of his possession, which Jahveh gave unto 
them " (Deut. ii. 12). '' The land of his possession " is 
the country west of the Jordan ; hence that land was 
in the possession of Israel when those words were 
written. A similar statement is found in iv. 38 : 
Jahveh brought Israel out of Egypt " to drive out na- 
tions from before thee greater and mightier than thou, 
to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheri- 
tance, as at this day." It is difficult to see how this 
could have been said before Canaan was occupied by 
the Hebrews. 

Again, we read that **Jair, the son of Manasseh, 
took all the regions of Argob . . . and called 
them, even Bashan, after his own name, Havvoth-jair, 
unto this day" (iii. 14). This statement is presumably 
based upon Num. xxxii. 41. But a son of Manasseh 
could not have lived in the Mosaic age. Jair is men- 
tioned in I. Chron. ii. 22 as the possessor of twenty- 
three cities in the land of Gilead; he is there called the 
son of Segub, who was a grandson of Machir, the son 
of Manasseh, But in Judges x. 3ff., we read that Jair, 



THE MODERN POINT OE VIEW. 6i 

the Gileadite, was one of the judges, and the thirty 
cities in the land of Gilead which belonged to his sons 
were "called Havvoth-jair unto this day." If we ad- 
mit that Moses or a contemporary might call Jair a 
son of Manasseh, he could not have confused Gilead 
and Bashan.* The statement in Judges can be har- 
monized with that in Numbers only on the hypothesis, 
highly probable on other grounds, that the conquest 
of Gilead was not completed until the period of the 
Judges. Further, the expression "unto this day," which 
occurs in this verse and elsewhere in Deuteronomy, 
would scarcely be used by one who was contemporary 
with the events described. 

In iv. 45f., we read that Moses spoke this law before 
the children of Israel '' when they came forth out of 
Egypt, beyond Jordan ... in the land of Sihon, 
whom Moses and the children of Israel smote, when 
they came forth out of Egypt." The writer makes no 
distinction between the time of the Exodus and the 
time, thirty- eight years later, when the land of Sihon 
and of Og was conquered. It is not easy to suppose 
that Moses, or any one else in his age, could have been 



* In Deuteronomy the places called Havvoth-jair, it should be 
noted, are in Bashan ; in Numbers, as in Judges, these are in 
Gilead. Furthermore, it is stated in Deuteronomy iii. 4ff. that this 
region of Argob was taken by Moses. Driver supposes iii. 1 4 to be a 
late interpolation designed to harmonize Deuteronomy with Num- 
bers. 



62 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

SO unmindful of the perspective of time. A much later 
writer could easily have done so. " The phrase ' when 
they came forth out of Egypt,' " says Driver ('* Deuter- 
onomy," p. 8i), "must have sprung from a time when 
the forty years in the wilderness had dwindled to a 
point." 

It is stated frequently in Deuteronomy that Moses is 
addressing the very ones who came forth out of 
Egypt, whereas we are also expressly told that all the 
adult generation (i. 35ff) had died during the v/ander- 
ings in the wilderness : " Jahveh made not this cove- 
nant [that is, that made in Horeb thirty-eight years 
before] with our fathers, but with us, even us, who 
are all of us here alive this day " (v. 2f.) ; " I spake 
not with your children which have not known, and 
which have not seen the chastisement of Jahveh, your 
God " — going on to recite the overthrow of Pharaoh, 
of Dathan and Abiram — " but your eyes have seen all 
the great work of Jahveh which he did " (xi. 2ff.; xxix. 
2ff., et passim). 

The men addressed by Moses are said to be the 
same ones who had stood under the mountain, when 
the mountain burned with fire (iv. loff.), though this 
event took place directly after the Exodus. It is much 
easier to suppose that a later writer could have made 
such an identification than that a contemporary could 
have done so. The matter is not easily disposed of 
by supposing that many of the people who were with 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 63 

Moses in the land of Moab had been Httle children at 
the time of the Exodus ; for the covenant was not 
made with the children, but with the adults, and cer- 
tainly the children did not stand under the burning 
mountain to enter into the covenant. 

The law of the landmark shows clear traces of an 
age long after the settlement in Canaan : " Thou shalt 
not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old 
time have set, in thine inheritance" (xix. 14). The men 
of old time who had set the landmarks were obvi- 
ously the Israelites who had seized and settled the 
country. We may compare Prov. xxii. 28 — 
" Remove not the ancient landmark, 
Which thy fathers have set." 

The word rendered above '' they of old time " is used 
in Lev. xxvi. 45, Psalm Ixxix. 8, of the ancestors of the 
Israelites. 

The post-Mosaic age is seen in many other laws,^.^., 
" and the officers [who are mustering the forces for 
battle] shall say unto the people, What man is there 
that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated 
it } let him go and return to his house, lest he die in 
the battle, and another man dedicate it" (xx. 5); 
*' When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt 
make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not 
blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence" 
(xxii. 8). These laws could not have originated during 
Israel's nomadic life. 



64 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

In xix. iff. Moses directs the people to appoint three 
cities of refuge in their land when they shall have com- 
pletely subdued it; and in case their border is enlarged 
they are to appoint three additional cities. But 
in iv. 4iff. we are told that Moses himself appointed 
three cities of refuge on the east of the Jordan. 
Neither Moses nor a contemporary could have said 
this; for in Num. xxxv. Qfif. Moses directs that after the 
Israelites have taken possession of Canaan, they shall 
appoint six cities of refuge, three on each side of the Jor- 
dan. In Josh. XX. /f. the six cities are named as ap- 
pointed by the people under Joshua's direction, and the 
three named for the east of the Jordan are identical with 
those said in Deuteronomy to have been appointed by 
Moses. It is needless to multiply instances. These 
are enough to show that certainly many parts of 
Deuteronomy indicate a date subsequent to the time of 
the great law-giver. 

Suppose, now, we read the book to see what impres- 
sion it makes as to authorship. Is there any internal 
evidence which tends to show that Moses was the 
author? The book is on the face of it a collection of 
addresses delivered by Moses to the people of Israel 
after their conquest of Transjordanic Palestine, and 
before the crossing of the Jordan, with some historical 
notes and introductions. Everywhere in the narrative 
portion — thirty-six times in all — Moses is spoken of in 
the third person. The book seems on the face of it to 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 65 

be the production of one who undertook to preserve the 
last discourses of Moses along with certain connected 
events, including his death and burial. Thus the book 
begins: "■ These are the words which Moses spoke unto 
all Israel beyond Jordan in the wilderness"; in other 
places we read: '' This is the law which Moses set be- 
fore the Israelites " (iv. 44); " Moses called unto all 
Israel, and said unto them" (v. i); "Moses, the man of 
God, blessed the children of Israel before his death " 
(xxxiii. 1); "Moses commanded us a law " (xxxiii. 4) — 
surely Moses could not have written these last two ex- 
pressions. We cannot avoid the natural inference 
from these facts by supposing that Moses, like Caesar, 
speaks of himself in the third person ; for everywhere 
in the speeches he uses the first person of himself and 
the second person for the people. From v. i toxxvii. i 
the name of Moses is not once found. The book has 
no more the form of a work of Moses than the Gospels 
of a compilation by our Lord, or the Acts that of a work 
by St. Paul or St. Peter. 

In harmony v/ith this conclusion is the retrospective 
character of the book. In some of the places cited 
above it appears as if the author were looking back 
through a considerable space of time to the Mosaic 
age. There are many other expressions which show 
a similar point of view: "We took the land at that 
time out of the hand of the two kings of the Amorites 
that were beyond Jordan" (iii. 8); but by Moses this 



66 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

would have been spoken of as a very recent event. 
The bedstead, or, more probably, the sarcophagus, of 
Og-, was still preserved in Rabbah of the Ammonites 
(iii. ii); "I commanded you at that time" (iii. i8) — 
said to the Transjordanic tribes after they had taken 
possession of Gilead and Bashan. The expression ** at 
that time" is used in Hebrew for an undefined distant 
period, either in the past or future, and we find it so 
used frequently in this book. 

But there are two or three passages which make it 
impossible, without great violence, to hold that Moses 
wrote the whole of Deuteronomy. For we are told 
that he wrote certai7i parts of the book — a statement 
wliich precludes his authorship of the whole. **So 
Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to 
the Israelites " (xxxi. 22); but we are not told what the 
song is, unless it is part of xxxii. 1-43, which, however, 
has an introduction and superscription of its own. In 
the latter (xxxii. 44) it is stated that Moses and Joshua 
spoke the song in the ears of the people ; in harmony 
with this, the command to write the song (" write ye this 
song for you, "xxxi. 19), is in the plural. The song, more- 
over, is a review of the history of Israel as a disobedient 
nation. Again we read: " Moses wrote this law, and de- 
livered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi " (xxxi. 9); 
** When Moses had made an end of writing the words of 
this law in a book " {ib., 24). Elsewhere Moses, jointly 
with the elders, directed the people to write very plainly 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 67 

the Law upon great stones covered with plaster on the 
very day they should cross the Jordan, and to set up 
these stones upon Mount Ebal (xxvii. 1-4, 8). 

Surely Josiah and those who were concerned with 
him in the pubHcation of this Law had no idea that they 
were deahng with a Mosaic composition, or the name 
of the great law-giver would have been used to give it 
additional sanction. In all the references to the new 
book of the Law in Kings and Jeremiah, the name of 
Moses is not mentioned, except in a passage manifestly 
due to the compiler of Kings (IL Kings xxiii. 25). 
Yet Moses in this time was indisputably looked upon 
as one of the greatest of God's saints in the past. (See 
Jer. XV. I.) 

Would that we could stop our investigation at this 
point ! The Book of Deuteronomy might then be re- 
garded as a composition in its present form made long 
after Moses' time, but consisting chiefly of his 
speeches, partly exhortations to obey the laws, and 
partly the laws themselves. But if we resolve to fol- 
low the evidence as far as it goes, we cannot stop at 
this point, for the evidence does not. Some laws have 
already been cited which are part of the work ascribed 
to Moses, but which betray a later age. The law con- 
cerning the king (xvii. I4ff.) is of this character. A 
law which shows such connection with the rule of Sol- 
omon and his successors cannot easily be assigned to 
the Mosaic age, even making reasonable allowance for 



68 THE OLD TESTAMENT EROM 

anticipatory legislation. Moreover, if this law were in 
existence, why does Samuel, and Jehovah, too, regard 
the request of the Israelites for a king as sinful rebel- 
lion ? (I. Sam. viii.) In xxviii. 36, in spite of the fu- 
ture tenses,* an existing king seems to be presupposed. 
But the chief law which has been with most confi- 
dence assigned to a post-Mosaic date is that of the 
central sanctuary. In Deuteronomy this law is em- 
phasized again and again. It stands at the very fore- 
front of the Deuteronomic code. The essential parts 
are here given. ** You shall completely destroy all 
the places where the nations which you shall drive 
out have served their gods, upon the high mountains 
and upon the hills, and under every green tree ; and 
you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces 
their pillars, and burn their Asherim. . . . But 
unto the place which Jahveh your God chooses from 
all your tribes to put His name ; His habitation shall 
you seek, and thither shalt thou f come : and thither 
you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacri- 

* " Jahveh will bring thee and thy king whom thou settest over 
thee unto a nation," etc. 

t One of the unsolved puzzles of Deuteronomy is the frequent 
change from the singular to the plural. Steuernagel has used this 
variation as a basis for the analysis of the book, holding that the 
" thou " sections are older than the "you" sections. Das Deuteron- 
omium, in Nowack's " Hand Kommentar vun A. T."; see also Ad- 
dis, " Documents of the Hexateuch," II., p. iiff. The analysis on 
this basis is far from satisfactory. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 69 

fices, and your tithes, and the heave offering of your 
hand, and your vows, and your free-will offerings, and 
the firstlings of your herd and of your flock : and there 
you shall eat before Jahveh your God. . . . Take 
heed to thyself lest thou offer thy burnt offerings in 
every place that thou seest ; only in the place which 
Jahveh chooses in one of thy tribes, there shalt thou 
offer thy burnt offerings" (xii. 2ff., I3f.). 

This law was meant to abolish the high places. But 
the high places were not aboHshed until Josiah's time, 
and there is not a single protest against their use until 
the time of Hezekiah. We might indeed say that 
disobedience of a law does not necessarily prove its 
non-existence ; but we shall find but a poor refuge in 
that negation. For we have to consider not only the 
fact of the disobedience of a law that is central in the 
code, but also the absolute silence concerning it. It is 
not merely the disobedience by the mass ofthe people, 
but by the godliest souls that existed between Moses 
and Josiah. In the book of Kings, which obviously 
was not compiled before the exile, and which is written 
from the Deuteronomic point of view, we find the con- 
stant lament that even the best kings, who walked 
after God like David their father, still had this blemish, 
that they sacrificed in the high places. 

Gideon offered a sacrifice under the oak which was 
in Ophrah by direction of the messenger of Jehovah, 
and built an altar there which was still standing at the 



70 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

time the book of Judges was compiled (Judges vi. 
igff., 24) ; then at God's command he built another 
altar to Jehovah on the top of the stronghold,* and 
offered a burnt offering upon it {ib., 25). Micah the 
Ephraimite may not be regarded as a typical saint 
even of the early days of Israel. It may not seem 
strange therefore that out of the refunded money he 
had stolen he made a graven image and set up a sanc- 
tuary of his own ; but it does seem strange that the 
Levite who was the priest of this place was Jonathan the 
grandson of Mosesf {ib., chaps, xvii., xviii). The same 
Levite afterwards became priest of the sanctuary in Dan. 
That Samuel stands out among the greatest of the 
great men of Israel's history, no one will question. 
But Samuel, the man of God, sacrificed at such places 
as suited his purpose. Before the second battle of 
Ebenezer, he offered a burnt offering at Mizpah (I. 
Sam. vii. 9), and Jehovah responded to his appeal ; 

* In accordance with the ideas of the times, the altar was built 
upon the highest point available. It may be that this is a duplicate 
narrative, only one altar having been built. See Moore's "Judges," 
in loc. 

t R. V. has rightly placed Moses in the text, with the marginal 
note, " another reading is Manasseh." The printed Hebrew Bibles 
still show how this corruption came in. Moses and Manasseh 
differ in Hebrew only by the letter " n." This letter was added 
above the line, and has remained there to this day. The object 
of the change is obvious. For further details see Moore's 
" Judges," in loc. 



THE MODERN- POINT OF VIE W. 71 

the enemy attacked even while the offering was in 
progress, and Jehovah thundered against the Philistines 
and discomfited them. At his home in Ramah he built 
an altar to Jehovah {jb ^ 17); when Saul came to consult 
the seer the latter was preparing for a sacrifice in the 
high place (ix. 12) ; he promised Saul that he would 
join him at Gilgal to offer burnt offerings and sacrifices 
(x. 8 ; of. xi. 15); Samuel went to Bethlehem to anoint 
David as king under cover of offering a sacrifice 
(xvi. 2) ; from which it appears that Samuel was so in 
the habit of offering sacrifice in various places, that the 
least suspicious errand in Bethlehem would be the 
offering of a sacrifice. 

A short time after this there was a sanctuary at Nob 
with a considerable company of priests (I. Sam. xxi. f.). 
Saul was told, as the most plausible reason for David's 
absence, that his family were to hold their annual sac- 
rifice at Bethlehem (xx. 6, 29). David offered sacrifices 
as the ark was removed from the house of Obed-edom, 
and again after it had been placed safely in the tent 
which had been prepared for it (II. Sam. vi. 13, 17). 
He granted permission to Absalom to go down to 
Hebron to offer a sacrifice there (ib., xv. 7ff). The 
erection of an altar upon the spot which afterward be- 
came so holy was due, speaking after the manner of 
men, to an accident {ib.^ xxiv. i6ff.). 

Solomon's great vision was in the night after he had 
offered great sacrifices at Gibeon, which was the chief 



72 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

high place (I. Kings iii. 4ff.). King Asa {ib., xv. 14) 
tolerated the high places, though in other things he 
was a reformer. The good king Jehoshaphat likewise 
did not disturb the worship at the local sanctuaries 
(xxii. 43). The like tolerance is seen in Jehoash* 
(II. Kings xii. 3) ; in Amaziah (xiv. 4) ; in Uzziah 
(xv. 4); in Jotham (xv. 35), to mention only those 
kings who are said to have done that which was right in 
the eyes of Jehovah. Though Hezekiah had made an 
effort to repress the high places, it was wholly ineffec- 
tive, and the reason probably is that he had no such sup- 
port for his reform as Josiah had in the book of the Law.t 
The early prophets furnish further evidence that the 
regulations of Deuteronomy were either unknown to 
them or indifferent to them. Hosea mentions among 
the things Israel will be deprived of by the captivity, 
king, prince, sacrifice, pillar, ephod and teraphim (iii 4). 
The pillar:]: was strictly forbidden in Deuteronomy; 
*' neither shalt thou set thee up a pillar, which Jahveh 

" It is more remarkable that Jehoash tolerated the high places, 
for he was under the influence of the high priest Jehoiada, to whom 
he owed the throne. The conclusion seems irresistible that neither 
king nor priest knew any law condemning the high places. It is 
still more noteworthy that Josiah, whose reformatory measures had 
begun before the discovery of the book in the temple, appar- 
ently had originally had no idea of abolishing the local sanctuaries. 

t See W. R. Smith's " Old Testament in the Jewish Church," 
2d ed., p. 256f. 

\ Properly a consecrated stone such as Jacob setup, Gen.xxxi. 45. 



THE MODERN POINT OE VIEW. 73 

thy God hateth " (xvi. 22). Isaiah seems to have had 
no objection to pillars or to a multiplicity of altars, as he 
said that in converted Egypt there would be an altar 
to Jehovah, and a pillar to Jehovah (xix. 19). Even 
Joshua set up such a consecrated stone under the 
sacred tree by the sanctuary of Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 
26). The stone which Samuel set up at Ebenezer was 
of the same character (L Sam. vii. 12). 

Gathering up the results of the evidence accumulated, 
it appears: (i) that the book of Deuteronomy was the 
legal basis of Josiah's reformation ; (2) that the book con- 
tains many statements which reveal an age later than 
Moses; (3) that the book has the form of a compilation 
of Moses' last speeches with historical notes; (4) that a 
number of the laws belong to an age long subsequent 
to Moses, in fact some of them carry us down to the 
age of Josiah (638-60S B.C.). There appears to be some 
good reason to believe, therefore, that whatever may be 
the real origin of much of the material in Deuteronomy 
— some of it is undoubtedly early — the book as a whole 
was never known to the public before 621 B.C. 

It may seem that this conclusion is more radical 
than the evidence warrants ; for the book may really 
have been lost during the time between Moses and 
Josiah and found again by Hilkiah. But observe 
that Josiah plainly acknowledges that his fathers have 
violated the fundamental principles of this code: 
''great is the wrath of Jahveh that is kindled against 



74 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

US, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the 
words of this book, to do according unto all that which 
is written" (II. Kings xxii. 13). He hin^self was 
entirely ignorant of this law. As the Law itself pre- 
scribes that it shall be read aloud to the people every 
seven years at the feast of tabernacles, and that every 
king shall possess a copy (Deut. xxxi. lof.; xvii. i8ff.), 
there should by this time have been many copies in 
existence, and a knowledge of the Law must have 
gained a currency which even a half century of sup- 
pression could not destroy. The object of the inquiry 
of the prophetess Huldah was apparently to know 
whether the Law should be put into effect. As soon as 
it was confirmed by Huldah, the king assembled the 
people and proceeded at once to make the Deutero- 
nomic code the law of the land. The impression is very 
strong, from a careful study of 11. Kings xxii. f, that the 
book was new to king and people. 

This is the point at which the cry of " pious fraud " 
has so often been raised. Cheyne, in his excellent lit- 
tle book on Jeremiah, asks, '' fraud or needful illu- 
sion } " ^ According to the literary ethics of to-day, 
the insertion of a single law which was not Mosaic in a 
code of actual Mosaic laws would be a fraud, and not a 
very pious one, either. But even if Hilkiah, or a com- 
pany of priest-prophets were the author, is their work 

* " Jeremiah : " His Life and Times," p. 69ff. On the question of 
fraud see also "O. T.J. C.^" p. 363. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 75 

to be judged by the standard of the dawn of the twen- 
tieth century ? The student of the Old Testament 
finds it necessary constantly to judge the ethics of the 
Old Testament from the pre-Christian rather than the 
Christian standard. It is perfectly clear that many im- 
precatory passages in the Old Testament are at vari- 
ance with the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is easy to 
understand how such things could be. We are not so 
much perplexed because Jeremiah, though a prophet of 
God, hurled curses at his persecutors, as that St. Paul, 
an Apostle of Christ, should have cried to the high 
priest, " God shalt smite thee, thou whited wall " 
(Acts xxiii. 3). In passing judgment upon actions of 
the ancient Hebrews, it is only fair that we shall qual- 
ify ourselves by historical study to look at the matter 
from their point of view. 

It does not follow, however, that Hilkiah, or his 
contemporaries, was guilty of a fraud, even according 
to our standards. There may have been a genuine 
Mosaic code which had been amplified, in subsequent 
years, according to the needs of a more developed civ- 
ilization."^ The one who amplified the Mosaic Law 
would have seemed to take too much upon himself, 
though he, too, was a man of God like his great prede- 
cessor, if he had substituted his own name for that of 

* The Deuteronomic code certainly is an amplification of the 
so-called Code of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.), which was suited to 
?in earlier stage of development. 



76 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Moses.* The evidence is strong that the book of Deut- 
eronomy had never been known to the people before 
Josiah's reformation, but it does not follow that the 
material of the book all comes from that date. It may 
be, further, that this law book was an actual find; it 
may be, as some hold, that the book of Deuteronomy 
had been written in the latter part of Hezekiah's reign, 
or in that of Manasseh. It would have been impossi- 
ble to publish it while the persecutor Manasseh sat 
on the throne. Before the way was open for the book 
to appear, its author may have become a victim of 
Manasseh's zeal for foreign gods, and the book may 
have been lost and forgotten. This view, which, 
though supported by no sure evidence, is not inher- 
ently improbable, removes all question of fraud. 

Whatever conclusion we may reach about the origin 
of the code, there can be no doubt as to the timeliness 
of its appearance. The assassination of Amon, the son 
of the wicked Manasseh, when it appeared that he would 
walk in his father's footsteps, shows that the best peo- 
ple were weary of religious persecution. Josiah began 
the purification of the temple, but the people at large 
could be but -slowly led to a pure Jehovah worship, as 
long as the local high places were tolerated. Those 
shrines had doubtless served Israel well in the early 
stages of the national life; but they had become hope- 
lessly corrupt. They had been, for the most part, old 

* See also Chap. v. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 77 

Canaanite sanctuaries, and some of the Canaanite rites 
had been preserved. The practice of these foreign 
rites seems to have increased as time went on, and by 
Josiah's day the high-place cult was in such a state 
that it could be purified only by fire. 

Hezekiah's attempt at the centralization of worship 
failed because the people were not ready for such rad- 
ical measures, and the king was not strong enough to 
enforce his will. The misgiving on the part of the 
people is shown in the clever address of Sennacherib'? 
ambassadors. They tried to weaken the courage of 
the Jewish people so that they would force a surrender 
of the city. *' If ye say unto me," they cried to the 
soldiers on the wall (II. Kings xviii 22), -'' we trust in 
Jahveh our God, is not that he, whose high places and 
whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said 
to Judah and Jerusalem, You shall worship before this 
altar in Jerusalem ?" 

Josiah found the people more receptive of reforms, 
and he was wise enough to take them fully into his 
confidence. His first step was to have the Law read 
to his assembled people, and then he took a solemn 
oath himself to obey the Law. It was then natural that 
the people should follow the example of their king 
(II. Kings xxiii. 3). Jeremiah's support had undoubt- 
edly a great influence. 

The political situation showed the ripeness of the 
times as well. The nation had passed through a long 



78 THE OLD TESTAMENT 

era of bloody persecution and political decay. The 
past misfortune was explained as due to the fact that 
their fathers had not kept the Law as laid down in the 
new book. The hope of the future was in a thorough- 
going reform. The religion of Jehovah advanced 
to a higher plane by the promulgation of the Deute- 
ronomic code, and its rigid enforcement. Except for 
Josiah's untimely death soon after the completion of 
his reforms, the whole course of Israel's later history 
might have been different. 

The book of Deuteronomy made a large contribu- 
tion toward that unification of worship which, in turn, 
aided in the development of monotheistic ideas among 
the masses. It is a priori impvohahle that such a rad- 
ical change in religious practice, as that from many 
sanctuaries to one, could be the work of a single gen- 
eration. Deuteronomy fixes as law a usage for which 
preparation had been going on ever since the erection 
of the temple by Solomon. That temple so overshad- 
owed the local sanctuaries in the splendor of its ap- 
pointments that they could not hope indefinitely to 
maintain a rival position. The acute Jeroboam .appre- 
ciated the influence of the great temple, and feared 
that it would wean away the hearts of his subjects; 
therefore he built the rival sanctuaries at Dan and at 
Bethel (I. Kings xii. 26ff.). 



CHAPTER IV. 



dbe Ibeyateucbo 

2. THE NARRATIVE. 

THE narrative of the Hexateuch has been di- 
vided bv higher critics into three main strata : 
one a product of the southern kingdom in 
the ninth century B. c, denoted by the symbol J 
(Jahvist) ; the other a product of the northern king- 
dom from a somewhat later period, denoted byE (Elo- 
hist); and the third a product of a Jewish priestly writer 
later still, denoted by P. It is also contended that 
just as the present Hexateuch is made up by compila- 
tion from pre-existing sources, with a few original ad- 
ditions, so each of these sources contains more or less 
material that has been incorporated by the writer, 
though those earlier sources show much less compila- 
tion than the later. From this conclusion are derived 
the really innocent symbols J, J^ , y, E, E\ E^ etc., 
which have given occasion for so much clever wit on 
the part of the assailants of the critical results. As 
J stands for the writing of one particular Jahvistic 
writer, who is the author of most of the Jahvistic sec- 



8o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

tions, J I'^.etc. g^j-g used to denote parts of his work, 
whether earlier or later, which were not composed by 
him, but were either extracted from earlier writings, or 
added by later hands. 

On purely (^ /r/<?r/ grounds, there is nothing absurd 
in such a supposition. It would not be strange if there 
had been three histories of Israel written from three 
different points of view. There are yet preserved two 
such parallel histories, Chronicles on the one hand, and 
Genesis to 11. Kings on the other. The Chronicler wrote 
a history of his people from Adam to the end of Nehe- 
miah's rule, and that from his own point of view. This 
point of view is so peculiar to himself that his interpre- 
tations of the history are not easily understood until 
his point of view is clearly known. The point of view 
is, as a matter of fact, so prominent in Chronicles that 
the book — for originally both books of Chronicles, 
along with Ezra and Nehemiah, constituted but 
one book — is about as valuable for the light it throws 
upon the times of the author as for that it throws upon 
the periods treated.* The Chronicler does not hint 
that he is largely compiling extracts from earher docu- 
ments ; but that is just what he does, nevertheless. 
His style is so peculiar that it is comparatively easy to 
separate his own contributions. This is critical analysis, 
and doubtless the results would be discredited by skep. 
tical minds, except that we have elsewhere in the Old 

*See further in Chap. VII, 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 8i 

Testament many of the passages which the Chronicler 
has incorporated into his book. 

We have four Gospels, which are all attempts to pre- 
serve an account of the life and teaching of our blessed 
Lord. Each is written, however, from its own peculiar 
point of view, and that point of view is easily discerned 
in the Gospel. Now, if some one had conceived the 
idea that it was better to have one Gospel than four, 
it would have been easy to compile one by simply 
choosing extracts from these four sources ; and, in 
fact, just that thing was done, and has come down to 
us in Tatian's Diatesseron. Fortunately, however, we 
have preserved to us the original documents. In this 
case, in fact, it was the single compilation which was 
long lost, not the original sources, as is the case in 
the Hexateuch. Moreover, as Sayce has pointed out 
(H. C. M., c. ii.), compilation was the rule rather than 
the exception among Semitic writers. 

But even if our present Hexateuch is conceded to be 
the result of a process of compilation from primary 
sources which have been lost, many are very skeptical 
as to the ability of any one to separate the completed 
thread into its original strands. Literary analysis is, 
of course, work for experts. We may not know that 
this verse is due to J and the next one to P, because we 
have not acquired the necessary knowledge and experi- 
ence, though we may often perceive the justification of 
the result when it is explained to us. People who 



82 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

drink the polluted water of many rivers and wells ex- 
pose themselves to the danger of typhoid fever. Most 
of us have never seen the germ of typhoid fever, and 
should not know one if we did see it. But we know 
the danger, because those who have the requisite 
knowledge and experience tell us of it; and we have 
this confirmation of their statement, that hundreds 
who drink such water actually contract the disease. 
Our knowledge is based upon the testimony of ex- 
perts. 

The writer by no means poses as a literary expert ; 
but there is much in the results of those who are liter- 
ary experts to convince him that their conclusions may 
not be too lightly brushed aside, even if he is persuaded 
that analysis is often carried beyond the possibilities of 
satisfactory demonstration. It is quite possible, more- 
over, for the most modest student to test the accuracy 
of the critical judgment. 

Another consideration must be given full weight. 
The more the original narratives which have been 
combined are alike in general conception and spirit, 
the more difficult the separation of the compilation, 
and conversely. The Constitution of the United States, 
for example, is a composite document, but it is very 
difficult to distinguish between its original contributors, 
because they all belonged to the same age, had pre- 
cisely the same object, and were imbued with the same 
spirit. But if a history of the Rebellion were compiled 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 83 

from two ex parte sources, the task of analysis would 
be comparatively simple. 

Of the three main sources in the Hexateuch, P is very 
different in style and conception, if not in age, from J 
and E. But J and E belong to the same general 
period ; they each deal with history in the prophetic 
spirit ; and therefore the cautious analyst confesses 
frankly that he is sometimes unable to separate between 
these two, even when he is sure that the passage in 
question contains material from both. Consequently, 
in, ^. ^., Driver's analysis, we find often JE simply, 
to indicate the combined product of these sources, 
though many scholars are bold enough to carry the 
analysis to completion. In Genesis the task is easier, 
because in that book E uses the name 'Elohim for 
God, and J Jahveh. 

A few of the more apparent cases in which the an- 
alysis rests upon the surest foundation will now be ex- 
amined, and the result indicated. Comparatively few 
examples can be exhibited ; but they are enough for 
our purpose, which is not critical analysis, but the test 
of the general division of the Hexateuch into its pri- 
mary sources. The reader may be referred to Dr. 
Gibson's admirable little book" for further evidence of 

*" Reasons for the Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch." Phila- 
delphia, 1897. For a fuller treatment, books such as Addis' '• Doc- 
uments of the Hexateuch " and Bacon's " Genesis in Genesis" may 
profitably be consulted. 



B4 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



the composite character of the Hexateuch. It will 
be found that I have rarely used the cases cited by 
him. 



I. One of the most striking instances of the com- 
posite character of the Hexateuch occurs at the very 
beginning of the Bible, in the story of creation. The 
two versions are here placed side by side, that they 
may be studied comparatively : 



J 

In the day when Jahveh 
God made earth and heav- 
en, then there was no 
shrub of the field on the 
earth, and no herb of the 
field had sprouted. For 
Jahveh God had not yet 
caused rain upon the earth, 
and there was no man to 
till the ground. And a 
mist went up from the 
earth, and watered all the 
surface of the ground. 
And Jahveh God formed 
the man of dust from the 
ground, and he breathed 
into his nostrils the breath 
of life ; so the man became 
a living soul. And Jah- 
veh God planted a garden 



These are the generations of the 
heavens and the earth, when they 
were created (ii. 4). 

1. In the beginning God created the 
heavens and the earth. Now the 
earth was a chaos and a waste, and 
darkness was upon the surface of the 
abyss ; and the Spirit of God was 
hovering over the surface of the 
waters. And God said, Let there be 
light ; and there was light : and God 
saw the light that it was good. And 
God made a division between the light 
and the darkness ; and God called the 
light day, and the darkness he called 
night. 

2. And God said, Let there be an ex- 
panse in the midst of the waters, and 
let there be a dividing between waters 
and waters. And God made the ex- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE TV, 



85 



in Eden on the east, and 
he placed there the man 
whom he had formed. 

And Jahveh God caused 
to sprout from the ground 
every tree agreeable in ap- 
pearance and good for 
food ; and the tree of life 
in the midst of the garden, 
and the tree of knowing 
good and evil. And Jah- 
veh God took the man 
and placed him in the gar- 
den of Eden to till it and 
to guard it. And Jahveh 
God commanded the man, 
saying. Of every tree of 
the garden thou mayst 
freely eat ; but of the tree 
of knowing good and evil 
thou mayst not eat. For 
in the day of thy eating of 
it thou shall surely die. 

And Jahveh God said. 
It is not good for the man 
to be alone ; I will make 
for him a helpmeet. And 
Jahveh God formed from 
the ground every beast of 
the field and every fowl of 
the heavens, and brought 
them unto the man to see 



panse, and made a division between 
the waters which were under the ex- 
panse and the waters which were 
above the expanse : and it became so. 
And God called the expanse heavens. 

3. And God said. Let the waters 
under the heavens be gathered unto 
one place, and let the dryland appear; 
and it became so. And God called 
the dry land earth, and the gathering 
of the waters he called seas. And 
God saw that it was good. And God 
said, Let the earth sprout forth grass, 
herb producing seed, fruit trees bear- 
ing fruit after its kind, whose seed is 
in itself, upon the earth ; and it be- 
came so. And the earth brought 
forth grass, herb producing seed after 
its kind, and trees bearing fruit whose 
seed is in itself after its kind. And 
God saw that it was good. 

4. And God said, Let there be lumi- 
naries in the expanse of the heavens to 
divide between the day and the night, 
and they shall be for signs and for 
seasons and for days and years; and 
they shall be for luminaries in the ex- 
panse of the heavens to give light upon 
the earth; and it became so. And 
God made the two great luminaries — 
the greater luminary for the ruling of 
the day, and the lesser luminary for 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



what he would call them ; 
and whatever the man 
called them, that was 
their name. And the man 
called names for all the 
cattle, and for the fowl of 
the heavens, and for all 
the beasts of the field. 
But for man he did not 
find a helpmeet. 

And Jahveh God caused 
a heavy slumber to fall 
upon the man, and he 
slept. And he took one 
of his ribs, and closed the 
flesh in its place. And 
Jahveh God built the rib 
which he had taken from 
the man into a woman, 
and brought her unto the 
man ; and the man said, 
This now is bone of my 
bone, and flesh of my 
flesh. To this shall be 
called woman, for it was 
taken from man. There- 
fore a man leaves his father 
and mother and joins to 
his wife, and they be- 
come one flesh. And 
they too were naked, the 
man and his wife, and 



the ruling of the night ; also (he made) 
the stars. And God placed them in 
the expanse of the heavens, to give 
light upon the earth, and t© rule over 
the day and over the night, and to di- 
vide between the light and the dark- 
ness : and Gcd saw that it was good. 

5. And God said. Let the waters 
swarm with swarms of living things, 
and let fowl fly over the earth, upon 
the surface of the expanse of the 
heavens. And God created the great 
sea monsters, and every living thing, 
the creeping thing with which the 
waters swarmed after their kind, and 
every winged fowl after its kind : and 
God saw that it was good. And God 
blessed them, saying. Be fruitful and 
multiply, and fill the waters in the 
seas ; and let the fowl multiply on the 
earth. 

6. And God said. Let the earth bring 
forth living things after their kind, cat- 
tle and creeper and beast of the earth 
after their kind : and it became so. 
And God made the beast of the earth 
after its kind, and the cattle after its 
kind, and every creeper of the ground 
after its kind : and God saw that it 
was good. And God said. Let us make 
man in our image, according to our 
likeness, and let them have dominion 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 87 

were not ashamed (Gen. ii. over the fish of the sea, and over the 
4^-9, 15-25). fowl of the heavens, and over the cat- 

tle, and over all (the beasts of) the 
earth, and over every creeper which 
creeps upon the earth. And God 
created man in his image, in the image of God created he him, 
male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God 
said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue 
it ; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of 
the heavens, and over every living thing which creeps upon the 
earth. And God said. Behold, I have given to you every herb 
yielding seed which is upon the surface of the whole earth, and 
every tree in which there is fruit of a tree yielding seed, it is yours 
for food ; and to every beast of the earth, and to all the fowl of the 
heavens, and to every creeping thing upon the earth in which is 
soul of life, every green herb is for food : and it became so. And 
God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good. 

7. And the heavens and the earth and all their host were com- 
pleted. And God completed the work which he had done in the 
seventh day ; and he rested in the seventh day from all his work 
which he had done. And God blessed the seventh day, and hal- 
lowed it, because in it he rested from all his work which he had 
done in creation (Gen. i. i-ii, 4*). 

In J's story I have omitted a short passage unneces- 
sary for my purpose ; in P's I have placed ii. 4 where it 
belongs as the heading, and have omitted the refrain, 
•* and it was evening, and it was morning, day first, sec- 
ond," etc. I have divided P's account according to 
the scheme of the seven days. 

An examination of the narratives shows that each is 



88 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

a complete account of the creation. The heavens, the 
earth, vegetable and animal life, including man. were 
the result of God's creative work. The agreement in 
the fundamental fact that God was the creator of the 
world is complete. But the differences of detail are so 
numerous as to preclude either unity of authorship, or 
attempts at harmony. It is worth while to examine 
these differences with some degree of fulness. This is 
the easier to do as, fortunately, each story has been 
preserved in its integrity. The compiler, instead of at- 
tempting to make an account of the creation by weav- 
ing together the two versions before him, simply placed 
one after the other, each in its complete form. 

J uses the divine name, Jahveh 'Elohim ■^; P uses 
only 'Elohim (God). J starts with an implication of the 
creation of the earth and heavens, and proceeds at once 
to the creation of life upon the earth ; P describes the 
creation of the heavens and earth (P's order as against 
J's, '' earth and heavens") as fully as anything else. J's 
principal interest is in the creation of man ; P's, in each 
part of the whole. J describes the earth as barren at 

* The original author wrote only Jahveh. The " 'Elchim " was 
added by the compiler, perhaps to identify the Jahveh of J with the 
'Elohim of P, whose story had been placed just before. It is very 
probable that the compiler's purpose was to add 'Elohim as an 
explanatory note ; but as he had no diacritical devices, he had to 
write his note in the text. In many similar cases, notes may have 
been placed originally on the margin, and then copied into the text 
by subsequent scribes. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W 89 

the beginning-, because there was no rain ; P describes 
it as covered with water. In J, man was the first 
object created as necessary to the production of vege- 
table life; in P, man was created last. In J, an individ- 
ual man was first created, and then, as the last creative 
act, a woman from his own body as a helpmeet ; in P, 
the genus man (including both sexes) was created to- 
gether. In J, the animals were created for man's 
especial benefit ; in P, though man has dominion over 
them, he is restricted to vegetable food. P's culminat- 
ing interest is in the divine institution of the Sabbath 
day, of which there is no mention in J. 

J's conception of God is far inferior to P's. J repre- 
sents Jahveh making man as an artificer; P repre- 
sents Him as accomplishing His will by a fiat. P's 
story is orderly, precise and repetitious ; it moves 
along with a consistent plan: first a fiat that a certain 
thing should be done, then the statement that it was 
done. In each case also there are the assertions, " and it 
became so," "and God saw that it was good." 

It is difficult to understand how a single writer could 
be responsible for such diversity of detail. 

II. Let us examine next these two passages placed 
likewise, side by side : 

J P 

Now Esau persecuted And Rebecca said to Isaac, I am 
Jacob because of the bless- mortally troubled because of the Kit- 
ing with which his father tite women. If Jacob take a wife of 



go THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

had blessed him. And such women as these Hittites, the 

Esau said to himself, The women of the country, what have I to 

days of the mourning for live for ? And Isaac called Jacob and 

my father are drawing blessed him, and commanded him and 

near ; then I will kill my said to him. Thou shall not take a 

brother Jacob. But Re- wife of the women of Canaan. Arise, 

becca heard of the words goto Padan-aram, to the house of Be- 

of her elder son Esau ; thuel, thy mother's father, and thence 

and she sent for her take a wife, from the women of Laban, 

younger son Jacob, and thy mother's brother. And may God 

said to him, Behold, thy Almighty bless thee, and increase 

brother Esau will have thee, and make thee many, so that 

revenge upon thee, by thou shalt be an assembly of nations, 

killing thee. Now, my And may he give thee the blessing of 

son, listen to my voice : Abraham, to thee and thy seed with 

Arise, flee thee to Haran, thee, that thou mayst possess the land 

to my brother Laban, and of thy sojourning which God gave 

live with him a few days, to Abraham. And Isaac sent Jacob 

until thy brother's wrath away; and he went to Padan-aram 

passes away — until thy unto Laban the son of Bethuel, the 

brother's anger passes Aramean, the brother of Rebecca, the 

away from thee, and he mother of Jacob and Esau (Gen. xxvii. 

forgets what thou hast 46-xxviii. 5.) 
done to him. Then I will 

send and bring thee from there. Why should I be bereaved of 
you both at one time ? And Jacob departed from Beersheba, and 

went to Haran (Gen. xxvii. 41-45, xxviii. 10). 

Are these two independent stories ? or are they 
rather, as modern critics assert, two varying forms of 
the same original ? These are certain facts which 
should be carefully noted. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, gi 

The same place is called Haran in one version and 
Padan-aram in the other. Each narrative distinctly 
states that Jacob was sent away; but there are two dis- 
tinct reasons given for his departure : (i) to escape 
the wrath of his enraged brother; (2) to procure a wife 
of his own kindred. It might be said that the shrewd 
Rebecca could not send Jacob off without Isaac's per- 
mission, and that she conceals from Isaac her real 
reason for desiring to get Jacob away, merely inventing 
the getting of a suitable wife as a pretext. Esau sup- 
poses that Jacob had gone away in order to get a wife 
from his kindred ; for he came to the conclusion that 
Isaac did not like the Cariaanite women, and so adds to 
his harem a wife of Abrahamic descent (Gen. xxviii. 8f , 
also P). But when we follow Jacob to Syria in J's 
story, his marriage is only an incident ; it does not ap- 
pear to be the real object of his mission. The two 
motives are therefore consistently preserved through 
the narrative. 

According to P again, Isaac blesses Jacob before his 
departure in a way that is truly strange, in view of the 
trick Jacob had played upon him. The source from 
which this is taken evidently knows nothing about 
Jacob's fraud in getting the blessing. Esau, too, is im- 
pressed with the blessing of Jacob, as he would not 
have been if this writer had known of the trick. A 
bare reading of the narrative reveals unmistakable signs 
of duplication. The natural conclusion is, therefore, 



92 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



that these two sources each contained an account of 
Jacob's departure for Syria ; but each gives a different 
cause for that journey. 

III. We will next separate a passage in which there 



seem to be three 

E 

And he lighted up- 
on the place, and 
spent the night there ; 
for the sun had set. 
And he took one of 
the stones of the 
place, and placed it 
by his head. And he 
lay down to sleep in 
that place. And he 
dreamed, and he saw 
a ladder set upon the 
ground, whose top 
reached the heavens. 
And he saw the an- 
gels of God going up 
and down upon it. 
And he was afraid, 
and said, How terrible 
is this place ! this is 
no other than the 
house of God, and 
this is the gate of 
heaven. And Jacob 



parallel stories : 

J 

And behold Jahveh 
stood by him and 
said , I am Jahveh, 
the God of Abra- 
ham thy father, and 
the God of Isaac. 
The ground upon 
v/ h i c h thou liest 
will I give to thee 
and to thy seed. 
And thy seed shall 
be like the dust of 
the earth ; and thou 
shalt spread west- 
ward and eastward 
and northward and 
southward. And all 
the families of the 
land shall be blessed 
in thee and in thy 
seed. And behold 
I am with thee, and 
will guard thee in 
every place thou go- 



And God appeared 
unto Jacob again 
when he came from 
Padan-aram. And 
God blessed him, 
and said to him, Thy 
name is Jacob. Thy 
name shall no longer 
be called Jacob, but 
Israel shall be thy 
name. And he called 
his name Israel. And 
God said unto him, 
I am 'El Shaddai. 
Be fruitful and in- 
crease. A nation 
and an assembly of 
nations shall come 
from thee, and kings 
shall come from thy 
loins. The land 
which I gave to Abra- 
ham and to Isaac, I 
give to thee ; and to 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 93 

rose early in the est, and will bring thy seed after thee 

morning, and took the thee back unto this do I give the land. 

stone which he had land. For I will not And God went up 

placed by his head forsake thee until I from him in the place 

and set it up for a have done what I where he had spoken 

sacred pillar. And have promised thee, with him. And Jacob 

he poured oil upon And Jacob awoke called the name of 

its top (Gen. xxviii. from his sleep, and the place where God 

11,12,17,18). said, Surely Jahveh had spoken with him 

And Jacob went is in this place, and Bethel (Gen. xxxv. 

to Luz, which is in I did not know it. 9-13, 15). 

the land of Canaan And he called the 

(that is Bethel), he name of that place 

and all the people Bethel ; but formerly 

who were with him. Luz was the name 

And he built there of the city (Gen. 

an altar, and called xxviii. 13-16, 19). 

the place El-Bethel ; And Jacob set up 

for there God was re- a sacred pillar in 

vealed unto him, the place where he 

when he fled from his spoke unto him, a 

brother (^Gen. xxxv. stone pillar. And he 

6, 7). poured a drink-of- 
fering upon it, and 
poured oil upon it 
(Gen. xxxv. 14). 

Here are surely three accounts of the theopbany 
which gave rise to the name Bethel, whether indepen- 
dent or not. There were two theophanies at Bethel, 
according to E and J, one before and the other after 
Jacob's long sojourn with Laban, P knows only one, 



94 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



and that occurred at the later time. According to J, 
the name Bethel was given at the first visit, but the 
consecrated stone was set up at the second. In E, 
precisely the opposite order of events is given : the 
consecrated stone was set up at the first visit, but the 
name Bethel was given at the second. P agrees with E 
in this last matter, but of course has nothing to say 
about the sacred stone, for all such things were an 
abomination to him. 

That the narratives are parallel seems manifest. The 
blessing in P has almost identical phraseology with 
the blessing of Isaac in xxviii. 3f. J uses the name Jah- 
veh, E 'Elohim, and P 'El Shaddai in the blessing (as in 
xxviii. 3), otherwise 'Elohim. We find here P's account 
of the origin of the name Israel ; but this name has 
already been accounted for in another source (J). On 
the night before Jacob met Esau he was left alone 
by the river Jabbok. There the wrestling angel said 
to him, in answer to Jacob's demand for a blessing, 
" Thy name shall not again be called^ Jacob, but Israel, 
for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast 
conquered " (xxxii. 28). The giving of this name inter- 
rupts the narrative in P's blessing, and is regarded by 
Dillmann as an insertion by an editor. P always calls 
the patriarch Jacob, never Israel. At all events, it 
must be apparent that God did not change Jacob's 
name twice and at practically the same time. 
* A different word is used lor "called" in P (Gen. xxxv. 10). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 95 

It is to be noted, however, that the stories agree in 
essential matters : the name Bethel was given to the 
ancient Luz by Jacob ; he so named it after a the- 
ophany, and because it appeared to him a place of pe- 
culiar sanctity. It should be noticed that J anachron- 
ously uses the name Bethel in the history of Abraham 
(Gen. xii. 8 ; xiii. 3). The name Luz does not ap- 
pear before this. Luz is a different city in Judges i. 26, 
and perhaps in Josh. xvi. 2 (JE); but P repeats the 
identification, though he retains the older name (Josh, 
xviii. 13; cf. Gen. xlviii. 3). 

IV. As a minor matter, it may be noted that we have 
two explanations of Joseph's name which are placed 
directly after each other in our present text, with omis- 
sions which are obvious and readily supplied. The 
sentence in brackets was omitted by the compiler. 

E J 

And she conceived and bore And she called his name 

a son, and said, God has taken Joseph (" may he add"), saying, 

away (Heb., 'asapk) my re- May Jahveh add (Heb., j/«j<2/>^) 

proach [and she called his name another son to me (Gen. xxx. 

Joseph (" he takes away '')] (Gen. 24). 
xxx, 23). 

These two passages are distinguishable by the differ- 
ent name for God, as well as by the different etymol- 
ogy of Joseph's name. The name Joseph in Hebrew 
could come from either of these two roots. One derives 
it from 'asapJiy to take away, the other from yasaph^ to 



96 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

add. The account of the birth of Jacob is omitted 
^rom J, and the naming from E; but there can be no 
doubt that the compiler has preserved a duplicate deri- 
vation. 

V. If one reads the story of Joseph's sale to the cara- 
van which took him to Egypt, he is struck with the 
number of duplicate statements. The matter is cleared 
up by separating the double narrative. 

E J 
And they said to each other, And Joseph went after his 
Lo, yonder master of dreams is brothers, and found them in Do- 
coming. Now, come, let us kill than. And they saw him afar 
him, and cast him into one of the off, before he was near them, 
pits, and, we will say, A wild and they formed a plot to kill 
beast has devoured him. Then him. And Reuben heard it, 
we will see what will become of and delivered him from their 
his dreams. And Reuben said hand, and said. Let us not take 
to them. Do not shed blood : his life. 

cast him into this pit which is And they sat down to eat 

in the wilderness ; but do not lay food. And they looked up and 

a hand upon him— that he might lo, they saw a caravan of Ishma- 

deliver him from their hand to elites coming from Gilead ; and 

return him to his father. And their camels were carrying spi- 

when Joseph came to his broth- eery and balm and myrrh, taking 

ers, they stripped Joseph of his it down to Egypt. And Judah 

tunic, the long- sleeved tunic, said to his brothers, What is the 

which was on him ; and they gain if we kill our brother and 

took him and cast him into cover up his blood ? Come, let 

the pit. Now the pit was empty, us sell him to the Ishmaelites, 

there was no water in it. and let not our hand be upon 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. gj 

And there passed by Midian- him — our brother is our flesh, 

ites, traders, and they (/. e., the And his brothers agreed, and 

Midianites) drew Joseph up out they sold Joseph to the Ishmael- 

cf the pit, and they brought ites for twenty pieces of silver. 

Joseph to Egypt. And Reuben And Joseph was brought down 

returned to the pit, and behold to Egypt, and Potiphar, an offi- 

Joseph was not in the pit. And cer of Pharaoh, the chief of the 

he rent his clothes, and went body guard, an Egyptian, bought 

back to his brothers and said, him of the Ishmaelites who had 

The lad is gone, and whither brought him down there (Gen. 

shall I go? And the Midian- xxxvii. 17^, 18, 21, 25-27, 28^- 

ites sold him in Egypt to Poti- xxxix. i). 
phar, an officer of Pharaoh, the 
chief of the body guard (Gen. 
xxxvii. 19, 20, 22-24, 28-30, 36). 

Each of the above narratives is complete, as will 
easily be seen if each one is read through. They are 
in perfect harmony as to the main facts. Joseph's 
brothers hated him and purposed to kill him, but they 
were dissuaded from doing this by Reuben. A cara- 
van chanced to be passing, which took Joseph and car- 
ried him to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar. 

But there are some striking differences in detail. In 
E, the caravan was composed of Midianites, in J, of Ish- 
maelites ; in J, Reuben seems to have been a party to 
the sale of his brother, contenting himself with saving 
his life. From E it would appear that the Midianites 
took Joseph out of the pit where his brothers had aban- 
doned him; that is, the traders did not buy Joseph, but 



gS THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

discovered him themselves, and took him as a captive. 
Hence Reuben came back to the pit secretly to rescue 
Joseph, not knowing that he had been stolen while he 
and his brothers were away. In the same source (E), 
consistently with this, Joseph told Pharaoh's butler 
that he had been ''stolen away out of the land of the 
Hebrews" (Gen. xl.15). In J, he was not put into a pit, 
but sold directly to the Ishmaelites. There is, perhaps, 
as m.uch harmony as one should expect in ancient nar- 
ratives like these. At all events, each one by itself is 
intelligible. 

But the composite story as it now stands is not very 
clear. If we read the passage continuously as we find it, 
we are struck with the confusion of statements. Joseph's 
brothers resolved to kill him (v. 18); they proposed to 
kill him and throw his body into a pit (19); Reuben 
rescues Joseph from his brothers (21); after which we 
read that Joseph arrived^ and was placed alive in an 
empty pit (23). The caravan comes along, and Judah 
proposes to sell Joseph instead of killing him; the Mid- 
ianites take Joseph from the p't and carry him away; 
then his brothers sell him to the Ishmaelites. Finally, 
Reuben, who had previously had Joseph safely in his 
hands, returns to the pit, and is surprised to find that 
Joseph has disappeared. It is highly probable that the 
compiler in joining together his narratives has occa- 
sionally made such omissions that, while sometimes we 
have to our gain double, or even triple, accounts of the 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 99 

same events, sometimes, on the other hand, we have no 
account at all. There is an example of peculiar inter- 
est directly connected with the above. After Joseph's 
brothers, at a later time, had experienced some rough 
treatment at his hands in Egypt, " they said one to 
another. We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in 
that we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought 
us, and we would not hear" (Gen. xlii. 21). It is very 
likely that the source which contains this (E) had a 
touching account of Joseph's plea for his life, when his 
brothers cast him into the pit and abandoned him there. 

VI. We will pass to the book of Exodus and examine 
the account of the institution of the Passover. 

JE* P 

And Moses summoned all the Speak unto all the congrega- 

elders of Israel, and said to tion of Israel, and let them take 

them, Draw away and get you for them each one a lamb for the 

sheep for your families, and kill head of the house, a lamb for a 

the passover. And take ye a house. And all the assembly of 

bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the congregation of Israel shall 

the blood which is in the basin, kill it at dusk, and they shall 

and touch the lintel and the two take of the blood and place it 

* The symbol JE is used in this and other cases to denote, as 
explained above, a passage in which it is not possible to separate 
these two sources accurately. A passage marked JE may be from 
either J or E entirely, or may be a combination of the two. Some 
writers venture much further than others in their analysis of JE 
in Exodus and Numbers. 



100 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

doorposts with the blood which upon the two doorposts and 
is in the basin; and not one of upon the lintel, upon the houses 
you shall go out of the door of in which they shall eat it. And 
his house until morning. And they shall eat the flesh in this 
Jahveh will go through to smite night. And ye shall let none of 
Egypt, and he will see the'blood it remain until morning. That 
upon the lintel and upon the two which may be left until morning 
doorposts, and Jahveh will pass ye shall burn in the fire. And 
by the door, and he will not per- ye shall eat it with haste : it is a 
mit the destroyer to enter your passover to Jahveh. And I will 
houses to smite. And ye shall pass through the land of Egypt 
observe this thing for a statute in this night, and I will smite all 
for you and for your sons for- the first-born in the land of 
ever. And it shall be when ye Egypt, from man to beast ; and 
come into the land which Jahveh I will execute judgment upon all 
gives to you, as he has promised, the gods of Egypt. And the 
that ye shall observe this cere- blood shall be a sign for you 
mony. And it sball be, if your upon the houses where ye are, 
sons say unto you. What is this and I will see the blood, and will 
ceremony to you ? that ye shall pass by you, and there shall be 
say, It is the sacrifice of the pass- no plague among you for a de- 
over to Jahveh, who passed by stroyer when I smite the land of 
the houses of the Israelites in Egypt. 

Egypt when he smote Egypt, In the house shall it be eaten, 

but saved our houses. And thou shalt not take outside of 

the people bowed down and wor- the house any of the flesh (Ex. 

shipped (Ex. xii. 21-27). xii. 1-13, 46, abridged). 

It needs but a casual inspection of these two pas- 
sages to see ho\v probable it is that they are parallel 
narratives. The essential facts of the feast are the 
same in each. There was to be a lamb for each fam- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, lor 

ily— except that P makes provision for a family too 
small to eat a whole lamb; the blood was to be placed 
upon the doorposts and lintels as a mark by which the 
destroyer (which P explains as a plague) would be 
kept from that house. But there are some noteworthy 
differences as well. The order of " lintel and door- 
post " (JE) is reversed in P. P mentions a single 
sheep ; JE uses the general term flock. P gives 
numerous specific details which are not in the older 
narrative. 

VII. The account of the institution of the feast of un- 
leavened bread affords another good instance of a dupli- 
cate narrative. 

JE P 

And Moses said unto the peo- And this day shall be to you a 
pie, Remember this day when ye memorial, and ye shall make it 
went out from Eg}'pt, from the a feast to Jahveh for your gen- 
house of bondage. For by erations : ye shall make it a feast 
strength of hand Jahveh brought by an eternal statute. Seven 
you out from thence; and leav- days unleavened bread shall ye 
ened bread shall not be eaten, eat. On the very first day ye 
This day ye were going out in shall stop leaven from your 
the month Abib. And it shall houses — for any one that eats 
be when Jahveh shall bring thee leavened bread, that soul shall 
unto the land of the Canaanites be cut off from Israel — from the 
. . . which he swore to thy first day until the seventh. On 
fathers to give to thee, a land the first day there shall be a 
flowing with milk and honey, holy convocation, and on the 
then thou shall observe this cer- seventh day there shall be a holy 



102 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

emony in this month. Seven convocation to you. No work 
days shalt thou eat unleavened shall be done in them ; only that 
bread, and in the seventh day is which any one must eat— that 
a feast to Jahveh. Unleavened alone may be prepared for you. 
bread shall be eaten for seven And ye shall keep the [feast of] 
days ; and leavened bread shall unleavened bread ; for on that 
not be seen of thee, nor shall very day I brought out your 
leaven be seen in all thy borders, hosts from the land of Egypt; 
And thou shalt inform thy son at and ye shall keep this day for 
that time, saying, Jahveh en- your generations by an eternal 
joined this to me when I came statute. In the first month, 
out of Egypt. And it shall be to (from) the fourteenth day of the 
thee for a sign upon thy head month, at evening, ye shall eat 
and for a memorial between thy unleavened bread until the 
eyes, that the law of Jahveh may twenty-first day of the month at 
be in thy mouth ; for with a evening. For seven days leaven 
strong hand Jahveh brought thee shall not be found in your houses, 
out from Egypt. And thou For every one that eateth leav- 
shalt keep this statute for its sea- ened bread, that one shall be cut 
son from year to year (Ex. xiii. off from the congregation of Is- 
3-10). rael, whether a stranger or one 

born in the land. Ye shall eat 
no leavened bread. In all your 
dwellings ye shall eat unleavened 
bread (Ex. xii. 14-20). 

The two versions of this ordinance agree very closely. 
The feast has the same peculiarities, lasting for seven 
days, and being observed by eating only unleavened 
bread. The rite was in commemoration of the exodus 
from Egypt. The earlier narrative calls the month by 
its old name Abib, rather than by the later Babylonian 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 103 

name Nisan, but does not specify the day. The later 
narrative adds the penalty of ex-communication for 
eating leavened bread in this time. The closeness of 
agreement makes it all the clearer that the narratives 
are duplicate versions of the same thing. It is quite 
inconceivable that one writer would repeat an account 
of an ordinance with a few variations. 

VIII. The story of the spies sent to the land of 
Canaan affords an interesting case of duplicates. 

JE P 

And (Moses) said unto them, And Moses sent them from 
Go up now into the south, and the wilderness of Paran to spy- 
go up into the mountain, and out the land of Canaan. So 
see what the land is, and whether they went up and spied out the 
the people who dwell in it are land from the wilderness of Zin 
strong or weak, few or many, into Rehob, to the entering in of 
And they went up into the south, Hamath. And they returned 
and they came to Hebron. And from spying out the land at the 
there were Ahiman, Sheshai, end of forty days. And they 
and Talmai, offspring of Anak. went and came to Moses, and to 
And they came to the valley Aaron, and to all the congrega- 
Eshcol, and cut down from there tion of Israel, unto the wilder- 
a branch and a cluster of grapes ; ness of Paran. And they 
and they carried it between two brought up an evil report of the 
men upon a staff. (And they land which they had spied out 
returned) to Kadesh, and brought unto the Israelites, saying, The 
back word unto them, and land, through which we have 
showed them the fruit of the gone to spy it out, is a land that 
land. And they said, We went devours its inhabitants. And 
to the land where thou didst send all the congregation lifted up 



104 I^HE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

us, and truly it flows with milk their voice and cried ; and the 
and honey, and this is its fruit ; people wept that night. And 
but the people that dwell in the all the Israelites murmured 
land are strong, and the cities against Moses and against 
are fortified and are very great. Aaron ; and the whole congre- 
And moreover we saw the off- gation said unto them. Would 
spring of Anak there. Amalek that we had died in the land of 
dwells in the land of the south ; Egypt, or would we had died in 
and the Hittites, and the Jebu- this wilderness, 
sites, and the Amorites dwell in Then Moses and Aaron fell on 
the mountain ; and the Canaan- their faces before all the assem- 
ites dwell by the sea, and along bly of the congregation of the 
by the Jordan. Israelites. And Joshua the son 

And Caleb stilled the people of Nun, and Caleb the son of 
for Moses, and said, Let us go up Jephunneh, who were of those 
at once, and possess it ; for we that spied out the land, rent 
are well able to do.it. But the their clothes; and they spake 
men who went up with him said, unto all the congregation of the 
We are not able to go up against Israelites, saying. The land, 
this people ; for they are stronger which we passed through to spy 
than we are. All the people it out, is an exceeding good 
that we .saw in it are men of land. But all the congregation 
great stature. And there we said to stone them with stones 
saw the Nephilim, the sons of (Num. xiii. 3^ I7^ 21, 25, 26^, 
Anak, who are of the Nephilim ; 32*; xiv. i, 2, 5-7, 10*). 
and we were in our own eyes as 
grasshoppers, and so we were in 

their eyes. Wherefore doth Jahveh bring us into this land to fall 
by the sword ? Our wives and our little ones will be a prey : is 
it not better for us to return to Egypt? And they said one to 
another. Let us appoint a chief and return to Egypt (Num. xiii. 
17^, 18, 22*, 23a, 26^-31, 32^-33; xiv. 3, 4). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 105 

There are many points of agreement in these narra- 
tives which are apparent at first sight ; but there are 
more striking differences. In P the spies start from 
Paran and return to the same place; in JE they re- 
turn to Kadesh and apparently started from that 
place (see Num. xxxii. 8; Deut. i. 19). In P they 
spy out the whole of Canaan to the far north ; in JE 
they go only to Hebron and the region about there. 
In P the report is unfavorable, the land eats up its peo- 
ple, i.e,^ is not able to sustain them ; in JE the land is 
good, but the people are too strong for the Israelites to 
dispossess. 

In both versions the people are discouraged by the 
report of the spies, but in P Joshua and Caleb encour- 
age the people, and, therefore, these two are excepted 
from the penalty of dying in the wilderness (xiv. 30, 
38); in JE Joshua is not mentioned, Caleb alone bring- 
ing in a hopeful report, and he alone is excepted from 
the penalty (xiv. 24). The omission of Joshua's name 
in JE is very singular. If he had shared with Caleb the 
hopes of an easy conquest, it is difficult to understand 
why his name does not appear. This position of Caleb 
is the same in other passages of JE. 

IX. The story of the tribes to which the land on the 
east of the Jordan was assigned shows an unmistakable 
duplication. Reuben and Gad, we are told, asked for 
the pasture lands across the Jordan, because their 



io6 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



tribes were possessed of much cattle. The story con- 
tinues thus : 



JE 

And Moses said unto them, If 
ye will do this thing, if ye will 
equip yourselves before Jahveh 
for the war, and every armed 
one will get you over Jordan be- 
fore Jahveh, until he has driven 
out his enemies from before 
him, and the land be subdued 
before Jahveh : then afterward 
ye may return and be innocent 
from Jahveh, and from Israel; 
and this land shall become your 
possession before Jahveh, But 
if ye will not do so, behold, ye 
will sin against Jahveh : and 
know ye that your sin will 
find you out. Build your cities 
for your little ones, and folds for 
your sheep ; and do that which 
has proceeded out of your 
mouth. 

And the sons of Gad and the 
sons of Reuben spake unto Mo- 
ses, saying, Thy servants will do 
as my lord commands. Our 
little ones, our wives, our prop- 
erty, and all our cattle, shall be 
there in the cities of Gilead ; but 



And Moses commanded con- 
cerning them Eleazar the priest, 
and Joshua the son of Nun, and 
the heads of the fathers' houses 
of the tribes of the Israelites. 
And Moses said unto them. If 
the sons of Gad and the sons of 
Reuben will pass with you over 
Jordan, every one that is armed 
for the war, before Jahveh, and 
the land shall be subdued before 
you ; then ye shall give them 
the land of Gilead for a posses- 
sion. But if they will not pass 
over with you armed, they shall 
take possessions among you in 
the land of Canaan. 

And the sons of Gad and the 
sons of Reuben answered, say- 
ing. What Jahveh has said unto 
thy servants, that will we do : we 
will pass over armed before 
Jahveh into the land of Canaan, 
and the possession of our inheri- 
tance shall remain with us be- 
yond Jordan (Num. xxxii. 28- 
32). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 107 

thy servants will pass over before Jahveh for the v^ar, every 
armed man of the host, as my lord says (Num. xxxii. 20-27).* 

The resemblance between JE and P is here so close 
as to preclude the idea that independent events are de- 
scribed. The passages are two very similar versions of 
the same story. A single writer would not have in- 
dulged in such a repetition. It maybe, as Bacon holds 
('* Ex " p. 242), that P is here dependent upon JE. P 
has a different version of the penalty if the tribes of 
Reuben and Gad failed to cross over Jordan with their 
brethren ; but it is not easy to see how it could be 
carried into effect after their tribes were once estab- 
lished in fenced cities. 

X. As the book of Joshua will come before us in an- 
other connection, but a single specimen of its analysis 
will be exhibited here. We take a case from the story 
of the cunning trick of the Gibeonites, by which they 
secured a treaty of peace from Joshua. 

JE P 

And Joshua made peace with And the princes of the congre- 

them, and made a covenant with gation took an oath unto them, 

them to let them live. And it And the Israelites departed and 

was at the end of three days came unto their cities or the 

after they had made a covenant third day. Now their cities were 

with them, and they heard that Gibeon, and Kephirah,and Beer- 

they were near by them, in oth, and Kiriath jearim. And 

fact that they dwelt in their the Israelites smote them not 

* Prof. Bacon assigns verse 24 to E, and all the rest to J. 



io8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

midst. And Joshua sent for because the princes of the con- 

them, and spoke unto them, say- gregation had taken an oath 

ing, Why have ye deceived us, unto them by Jahveh, the God 

saying, We are very far from you, of Israel. And all the congre- 

v^hen ye dwell in our midst? gation murmured against the 

Now cursed are ye, and there princes. But all the princes 

shall never fail to be among you said unto all the congregation, 

bondmen, both hewers of wood We have taken an oath unto 

and drawers of water for the them by Jahveh, the God of Is- 

house of my God. rael : now we are not able to 

And so did he unto them, and touch them. This we will do 

delivered them out of the hand to them, and let them live, that 

of the Israelites, and so they did there shall not be an outbreak 

not kill them. And Joshua made upon us, because of the oath 

them on that day hewers of wood which we took unto them. And 

and drawers of water for the the princes said unto them, Let 

congregation, and for the altar them live. ... So they be- 

of Jahveh unto this day (Josh, came hewers of wood and draw- 

ix 15^, 16, 22f, 26f). . ers of water unto all the congre- 
gation, as the princes spoke unto 
them (Josh. ix. 15^ 17-21). 

The reading of these passages is a sufficient justifica- 
tion of the separation. The part assigned to JE is 
complete and consistent. In P's account there is but 
one lacuna (marked by the periods); but the lacuna is 
there just the same, whether we accept the analysis or 
not. The closing statement, *'as the princes spoke 
unto them," shows that the princes must have told the 
Gibeonites that they were to become hewers of wood 
and drawers of water, There are several expressions 



THE MODERX POINT OF VIEW. 109 

common to the two narratives which are characteristic 
of P rather than JE. In the final revision some of P's 
favorite words have been placed in the earlier story of JE. 

The narratives agree in the most important points. 
The Hebrews — Joshua in one case, the princes in the 
other — made a treaty of peace with the Gibeonites, 
believing them to be a distant people. When the 
fraud was discovered, the people were resolved to visit 
their lies upon their heads, but Joshua (or the princes) 
insisted that the treaty should be respected, even 
though secured by misrepresentation. The trick is 
discovered after three days, and then the Gibeonites 
are reduced to servitude. 

The differences in detail are no less striking. In 
JE a covenant is made by Joshua; in P an oath is 
taken by the princes. In JE news is brought of the 
deception after three days ; in P the Hebrews discover 
the deception themselves by coming upon the Gibeon- 
ites in their cities after a three days' march. In P the 
reduction to servitude was made to satisfy the people, 
who clamored against the princes ; in J it was done by 
Joshua of his own motion, because they had deceived 
him. In JE a covenant or treaty was made with the 
Gibeonites ; in P a solemn oath was taken to them in 
the name of Jahveh. In P the princes were restrained 
from executing the Gibeonites on account of the sanc- 
tity of the oath of the princes ; in JE we are not told 
what impelled Joshua to save their lives. 



no THE OLI> TESTAMENT FROM 

If the analysis of the Hexateuch is not justified by 
a careful reading- of the passages cited above, it is not 
likely to be on any evidence. This kind of evidence 
can be multiplied many times ; but beyond a certain 
point the increase of cases would not affect the ver- 
dict. There is enough here to satisfy any one that the 
analytical results are right or wrong- 
There are two important questions which remain : 
What bearing does this analysis have upon the value 
of the documents as historical sources, and upon the 
authorship of the Pentateuch ? I say Pentateuch 
here, for, though the analytical study of Joshua is in- 
cluded, the delicate question of authorship concerns 
the books of the Pentateuch only ; for the Book of 
Joshua could never be regarded as a work of Moses. 

Sayce is very positive in regard to the former ques- 
tion. I quote from his most recent book on the 
"Early History of the Hebrews," p. I03f. : 

"■ It is clear that if the modern literary analysis of 
the Pentateuch is justified, it is useless to look to the 
five books of Moses for authentic history. There is 
nothing in them which can be ascribed with certainty 
to the age of Moses, nothing which goes back even to 
the age of the Judges. Between the Exodus out of 
Egypt and the composition of the earliest portion of 
the so-called Mosaic law, there would have been a 
dark and illiterate interval of several centuries. . . . 
For the Mosaic age, and, st 11 more, for the age be- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. lit 

fore the Exodus, all tliat we read in the Old Testa- 
ment would be historically valueless." 

If this assertion is a correct representation of the 
conclusions of the critics, or the necessary consequence 
of their conclusions, it would indeed be a serious 
matter. But Sayce's statement is anything but an 
accurate representation ; and his opinion of the effect 
of criticism is utterly groundless. A very large number 
of modern critics who hold the analytical view never- 
theless believe the documents to be historical. Prof. 
Bacon has gone as far as any critic in the analysis, but 
of the historicity of the sources he speaks thus, in his 
" Triple Tradition of the Exodus " : 

''When we consider the broadly national character 
of J's great poems. Blessings of Noah, Isaac, Jacob, 
Balaam, Moses ; Songs of Lamech, Moses, Joshua, 
Deborah and Barak, David. Solomon ; and the frag- 
ments of similar lyrics which form the nucleus of a 
large proportion of his narratives, and compare with 
these the general spirit of the document, it does not 
seem an improbable supposition that the Book of 
JasJiar-Israel \ix\6.^x\\^^ the history of J throughout its 
whole extent, and that it suggested to its author the 
form of his history of Israel, J impressing upon it its 
religious character" (Introd., p. xliii.f.). J, then, in- 
stead of drawing upon his imagination for his mate- 
rial, uses throughout pre-existing written sources. 
But this use of older material is not confined to J. 



112 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

The same writer says further : '^ E seems to have had 
at command a collection of national lyrics to some ex- 
tent parallel to J's " {ib,, p. xliv.). 

The existence of the Books of Jashar and of the 
Wars of Jehovah show that the early history of Israel, 
like that of the Greeks, was in the form of songs sung 
in praise of the tribal or national heroes. These songs 
are historical sources of the greatest importance. How 
much we learn of Saul and David's relation to him by 
David's song, preserved in the Book of Jashar (11. Sam. 
i. 19-27). We have at least one instance which proves 
clearly that such poems were used as historical 
sources. When the compiler of the Book of Judges 
was collecting his materials, he found two sources for 
the rising against Sisera — one the ancient Song of 
Deborah (Judges v.), the other a prose narrative 
(Judges iv.) which had been written with the poem as 
its source of information. The compiler fortunately 
incorporated both documents in his book. 

It is very true that many modern critics do not accept 
all parts of the Pentateuch as historical. But the analy- 
sis of the books into their component parts had nothing 
to do with forming their opinion. The Book of Jonah 
is not generally regarded as historical ; but this view is 
not based on a supposed composite structure, but upon 
its evident didactic purpose and allegorical character. 
Moreover, the analytical theory is applied to Joshua 
as much as to the preceding books, and what higher 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 113 

critic doubts the historicity of the Conquest ? The 
Books of Samuel are also composite ; but they are 
good historical sources nevertheless. The Books of 
Kings are confessedly largely extracts from the state 
archives ; but no one regards that origin as impairing 
their value as historical sources, even though the book 
was not compiled for some centuries after the events 
described in the first part. 

It is difficult to see on what ground the belief in the 
composite character of a book is connected with belief in 
its historicity. Very few intelligent people of the presr 
ent day regard the story of creation as historical, even 
though they may believe that Moses was the author of 
both accounts. If we turn back to the Bethel story, 
our opinion of the historicity of the event will not be 
injuriously affected by the discovery of the fact that 
we have three versions of the origin of that name in- 
stead of one. On the contrary, it seems clear that 
the independent testimony is the strongest kind of 
confirmation. 

The historicity of these ancient documents is not in 
the least invalidated by variation in details. It is a 
well-known fact that competent and honest eye-wit- 
nesses to the same fact will rarely agree in regard to 
all the particulars. Greenleaf, who was in his day a 
great authority on the laws of evidence, says with ref- 
erence to the varying statements in the Gospels : " If 
these different accounts of the same transactions were 



114 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

in strict verbal conformity with each other, the argu- 
ment against their credibility would be much stronger." 
As evidence of the importance of such variations, he 
says : " There is enough of discrepancy to show that 
there could have been no previous concert among 
them." ^ 

The question remains as to the age to which the com- 
position of this history is to be assigned. But a brief 
treatment is possible here. We shall look at some of 
the expressions in the narrative portions of the three 
books, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, to see what 
light they throw upon the date. 

The most cursory reading of the books shows us a 
number of expressions which betray a time later than 
that of the great lawgiver. " The Canaanite was then 
in the land" (Gen. xii. 6); *' the Canaanite and the 
Perizzite dwelled then in the land " (xiii. 7) — are ex- 
pressions which presuppose the extermination of the 
Canaanites after the Conquest ; for the occupation of 
the land by the Canaanites is looked upon as a thing 
of the distant past. ''Abram pursued as far as Dan " 
(Gen. xiv. 14; cf. Deut. xxxiv. i); but the name Dan 
was given to the city of Laish (or Leshem, as it is called 
in Josh. xix. 47), after the capture of that city in the 
period of the Conquest (see Judges xviii. 29). " These 
are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before 

* " An Examination of the Testimony of the Evangelists," 
p. 32f. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 115 

there reigned any king over the children of Israel " 
(Gen.xxxvi. 31) — this statement presupposes the mon- 
archy as already established in Israel. 

In this passage, '' they were very wroth because he 
had wrought folly in Israel " (Gen. xxxiv. 7; cf. Deut. 
xxii. 21), the name Israel is applied to the land of 
Canaan; this presupposes a later time than that of 
Moses (see 11. Sam. xiii. 12, " no such thing ought to 
be done in Israel "). " I was stolen away out of the 
land of the Hebrews " (Gen. xl. 1 5) — this name could not 
have been applied to Canaan before the Conquest. The 
words, " the children of Israel journeyed and pitched 
in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan at Jericho " 
(Num. xxii. i), must have been written on the west of 
the Jordan, hence after the Conquest. We find the same 
expression in Num. xxxiv. 15, ** the two tribes and 
the half tribe have received their inheritance beyond 
the Jordon at Jericho eastward toward the sunrising." 
"Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the towns 
thereof, and called them Havvoth-jair " {ib., xxxii.41), 
a passage already alluded to, describing an event which 
took place during the Conquest (Judges x, 4). 

In Num. xxi. 14 we have a quotation fromi the book 
called '' the Book of the Wars of Jehovah." It is ob- 
vious that a book with such a title could not have been 
in existence in Moses' time, before the Israelites had 
waged any wars other than the unimportant struggles 
with the desert tribes. The word regularly used for 



ii6 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

south in Hebrew (negebJi) means the district in the 
southernmost part of Palestine. But we find this word 
used for the '* south " in the Pentateuch as well as else- 
where.* The most common term for west {yam) means 
seazvard. The sea was the Mediterranean, and because 
this sea was the western boundary of Palestine, the 
term was used for " west "; this usage could scarcely 
have arisen before the occupation of Canaan. Never- 
theless, this usage prevails in the Pentateuch, t in fact, 
it is the only word used for " west " in the Pentateuch, 
or in any other pre-exilic writing. 

There are some of these passages which may be re- 
garded as glosses of a later date; but all of them can- 
not be so conveniently disposed of; and there is, it 
must be confessed, considerable evidence tending to 
show that the origin of these books must be placed in 
the time subsequent to the Conquest. The evidence, 
moreover, comes from all the sources, and, therefore, 
it is good for each of the main documents, as well as 
for the Pentateuch as a whole. The fact that all these 
sources are also traceable through Joshua, and even, it 
is claimed, into Judges, Samuel and Kings, if confirms 

*In Gen. xii. 9; xiii. i, 3, 14; xx. i ; xxiv. 62 ; xxviii. 14. Ex. 
xxvi. 18 ; xxvii. 9; xxxvi. 23; xxxviii. 9; xl. 24. Num. xiii. 17, 22, 
29; xxi. I ; xxxiii. 40 ; xxxiv. 3f ; xxxv. 5. Deut. i. 7 ; xxxiv. 3'. 

f-^".^., Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 14; xxviii. 14. Ex. x. 19; xxvi. 22. 
Num. ii. 18 ; iii. 23 ; xxxiv. 6 ; xxxv. 5. Deut iii. 27 ; xxxiii. 23. 

X See Bacon's " Triple Trad.," Introd.; Moore's " Judges," Introd. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 117 

. this conclusion as to the date. It is generally agreed 
that J and E were both composed before 750 B.C., and, 
as some place one or the other as early as 950 B.C., 
this is the period within which it is most probable that 
these two sources were composed. 

It is a grief to some to reach a conclusion which in- 
validates the claim that Moses is the author of these 
books. But it must be borne in mind that the books 
nowhere claim to be productions of Moses. The titles 
which we find in our EngHsh Bibles, " the first, second, 
etc.. Book of Moses," are not found in the Hebrew text, 
and are productions of a time later than the Christian 
era. The claim is not made in the books that Moses 
is their author, in fact, statements are made which are 
not easily reconcilable with his authorship. In the 
narrative portions Moses is always spoken of in the 
third person, and, as Dillmann says, "sometimes in a 
way in which he would not have spoken about him- 
self."* It certainly would be strange for Moses to 
write at the end of a genealogy, " These are that Aaron 
and Moses, to whom the Lord said, Bring out the 
children of Israel from the land of Egypt. . . . 
These are they {i.e.^ Moses and Aaron) which spoke to 
Pharaoh King of Egypt. . . . These are that Moses 
and Aaron " (Ex. vi. 26f.). No less surprising would it be 
for him to write, "Moreover, the man Moses was very 
great in the land of Egypt " [ib , xi. 3); or *'Now the 
* "Num , Deut., Josh.," p. 593. 



ii8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

man Moses was very meek, above all men which were 
upon the face of the earth " (Num. xii. 3). 

A strong argument already applied to Deuteronomy 
is equally applicable here. Moses is said to have writ- 
ten certain specific portions, so- that his authorship of 
the whole is excluded. If the heading of the Song of 
the Sea implies authorship, then we have the same dif- 
ficulty of explaining a joint production as in the Song 
of Deborah — '' Then sang Moses and the children of 
Israel this song unto Jahveh, and they said "(Ex. 
XV. i). But we have these express statements: "And 
Moses wrote all the words of Jahveh" {ib., xxiv. 4), 
i.e.^ the book of the covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.; cf. xxiv. 
7) ; " And Moses wrote their goings out according to 
their journeys " (Num. xxxiii. 2), i, e., a list of the sta- 
tions in the wilderness ; *' And Jahveh said unto Moses, 
Write this for a memorial in a book " (Ex. xvii. 14), 
i.e., the divine purpose to destroy Amalek ; "And 
Jahveh said unto Moses, Write thou these words "(Ex. 
xxxiv. 27), /. e., the so-called little book of the covenant 
(Ex. xxxiv. 12-26). 

Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a state- 
ment that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. 
We find many references to "the law of Moses," or 
the " book of the law of Moses,* " but all in late 

* Josh. viii. 3 if.; xxiii. 6. I. Kings ii. 3 ; II. Kings xiv. 6 (fairly 
exact quotation of Deut. xxiv. 16) ; xxiii. 25. II. Chron. xxiii. 18; 
XXX. 16. Ezra iii. 2 ; vii. 6. Neh. viii. i. Dan. ix. 11, 13. Mai. iv. 4, 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 



119 



sources, not one of them belonging to the pre-exilic 
period. We also find ** book of Moses,""* and once ''the 
book of the law of Jahveh given by Moses" (II. Chron. 
xxxiv. 14); but these obviously refer to the same thing. 
It is evident that in the post-exilic period there was a 
book of laws which was ascribed to Moses ; but as 
this is invariably referred to as law^ and never as his- 
tory, it is obvious that the authorship of Moses was 
connected with the Torah, and not with the com- 
pleted Pentateuch.t 

There are portions of the Pentateuch which may be 
ascribed to Moses without repudiating plain evidence. 
But that the whole was the production of the great 
lawgiver has an accumulation of evidence against it 
which is not easily set aside. If one who studies this 
evidence is not convinced that the modern theory is 
correct, he must at least admit that modern critics are 
not carried away by conjectural theories, but have 
some good evidence upon which to base their conclu- 
sions. 

* II. Chron. xxv. 4; xxxv. 12. Ezra vi. 18. Neh. xiii. i. 
t See further on this distinction, Delitzsch, " Com. on Genesis," 
Introd. 



CHAPTER V. 
^be Ibeyateucb, 

3. THE LAW. 

IT IS perfectly evident that there are three parts of 
the law in the Pentateuch. The divisions are 
quite independent of any theory of date or author- 
ship. There are : I. The code of the covenant (Ex. xx.- 
xxiii.), to which the little code of the covenant (Ex. 
xxxiv. 12-26) is a parallel. 2. The Deuteronomic code 
(Deut. xii.-xxvi., xxviii.). 3. The so-called Priest-code, 
filling a large part of Ex.xxv.-xl., the whole of Leviti- 
cus, and considerable portions of Numbers. 

That each of these is homogeneous, and each one 
possessed of clear features which mark it off from the 
others, is obvious from the contents. The first is very 
simple, dealing chiefly with the social fabric of a sim- 
ple community living upon the produce of their lands 
and herds ; the second deals with the same conditions 
more elaborately, and has a larger number of regula- 
tions in the religious sphere ; while the third, though 
not ignoring social matters altogether, is chiefly con- 
cerned with the sacrificial rites, and related matters; it is 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 121 

the Priests' law book, containing regulations by which 
the Priests ruled the community; hence it is called the 
Priest-code. The questions which we wish to consider 
are, whether all these codes are likely to have come 
from the same person, and whether all, or any of them, 
can reasonably be assigned to the Mosaic age. 

It should be noted at the outset that the first code 
is said to have been given to Moses at Sinai immedi- 
ately after the Exodus from Egypt; the second is said to 
have been spoken by Moses in the land of Moab after 
the conquest of Gilead and Bashan, therefore some 
forty years later ; while the third was given at various 
times ; that in Ex. xxv.ff. in the third month after the 
Exodus (Ex. xix. if. ; xxiv. i5fTf.) ; that in Leviticus 
after the tabernacle was set up, in the first month of 
the second year ; that in Numbers in the second month 
of the same year. Hence the first and third were given 
within a year directly after the Exodus, while the sec- 
ond was the last work of Moses, shortly before his 
death. Therefore the code of the covenant, and, on the 
assumption of the authorship of Moses, the Priest-code, 
should show the initial stages of the Mosaic legislation, 
and Deuteronomy should be its most developed prod- 
uct. 

It often happens that the same subjects are dealt 
with in all three codes. Driver has given a useful table of 
theDeuteronomic law, with the parallels from the other 
codes (L. O, T.^ p. 73ff. ; ''Deuteronomy," p. iv.-vii.). 



122 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

He classifies the Deuteronomic code (D)under sixty-six 
subjects. In twenty- six of these cases D stands alone ; in 
eight it has parallels with the code of the covenant (JE) 
only; in fifteen with the Priest-code (P) only; while in 
seventeen it has parallels with both JE and P. D has 
therefore parallels with JE in twenty-three cases, and 
with P in thirty-two cases. There is one part of the 
Piiest-code (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) which has marked features 
of its own. It has, besides, features in common with Deu- 
teronomy, and still more with Ezekiel, though not 
enough to destroy its individual character. It is gener- 
ally called the ** Law of Holiness," and denoted by the 
symbol H. A study of Driver's table justifies the state- 
ment that most of the parallels of D with P are in this 
small section. 

Much light is thrown upon the whole question of the 
laws by such a comparative study as this table affords 
convenient material for. We shall offer some of the 
results of such comparative study. 

I. THE LAW OF THE TITHE. 

P DP 

And to the sons of Levi Thou shalt surely And the 

behold I have given all the tithe all the produce tithe of the 

tithes in Israel for an in- of thy seed, which land, of the 

heritance, the portion for the field yields each seed of the 

their service which they do year. And thou shalt earth, of the 

— the service of the tent of eat it before Jahveh fruit of the 

meeting. And the Israel- thy God in the place tree, is Jah- 

ites shall not again ap- where he chooses to veh's ; it is 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE IV, 



123 



proach unto the tent of 
meeting, committing thus a 
mortal sin. But the Le- 
vite shall do the service of 
the tent of meeting, and 
they shall bear their guilt — 
an eternal statute for your 
generations ; and among 
the Israelites they shall 
have no inheritance. For 
the tithe of the Israelites, the 
offering v^hich they offer 
to Jahveh, I have given to 
the Levites for an inheri- 
tance; therefore I said to 
them, Among the Israel- 
ites they shall have no in- 
heritance. 

And Jahveh spoke to 
Moses, saying, And unto 
the Levites thou shalt 
speak, and thou shalt say 
unto them, When ye re- 
ceive from the Israelites 
the tithe which I have 
given to you from them for 
your inheritance, then ye 
shall offer of it an offering 
to Jahveh, a tenth of the 
tithe. And your offering 
shall be reckoned for you, 
as the corn from the 



place his name ; the 
tithe of thy corn, of 
thy wine, of thy oil, and 
the firstlings of thy 
herd and of thy flock ; 
in order that thou 
mayst learn to fear 
Jahveh thy God all 
the days. And if the 
way be too long for 
thee, because thou 
art not able to carry 
it [the tithe], since 
the place where Jah- 
veh thy God chooses 
to place his name is 
far from thee, be- 
cause Jahveh thy God 
has blessed thee, 
then thou shalt ex- 
change it for money ; 
and thou shalt bind 
the money in thy 
hand, and thou shalt 
go unto the place 
which Jahveh thy 
God chooses. And 
thou shalt exchange 
the money for any- 
thing which thy soul 
desires, cattle, sheep, 
wine, strong drink, 



holy to Jah- 
veh. And if 
a man wish 
to redeem 
any of his 
tithe, he shall 
add a fifth 
to it. And 
all the tithes 
of the herd 
and of the 
flock, all 
which pass by 
under the rod, 
a tithe shall 
be holy to 
Jahveh. He 
shall not dis- 
tinguish be- 
tween good 
and bad ; he 
shall not 
change it. 
But if he does 
exchange it, 
then that 
which is ex- 
changed shall 
also be holy 
to Jahveh : it 
may not be 
redeemed 



124 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



threshing-floor, and as the 
overflow from the wine 
fat. So shall ye also 
offer the offering of Jah- 
veh from all your tithes 
which ye receive from the 
Israelites ; and ye shall 
give of it Jahveh's offering 
to Aaron the priest. From 
all your gifts ye shall offer 
every offering of Tahveh, 
from all its fat, that which 
is holy of it. And thou 
shalt say unto them, When 
ye offer the fat of it, then 
it shall be reckoned to 
the Levites, as the produce 
of the threshing-floor and 
as the produce of the wine 
fat. And ye shall eat it 
in every place, ye and 
your households, for it is 
your wage, the portion of 
your service in the tent of 
meeting. And ye will 
not commit sin by it, if ye 
offer the fat of it ; and the 
holy things of the Israel- 
ites ye shall not profane ; 
then ye shall not die 
(Num. xviii. 21-32). 



or anything which (Lev. xxvii. 

thy soul demands ; 30-33). 

and thou shalt eat it 

there before Jahveh 

thy God, and thou 

shalt rejoice, thou 

and thy household. 

And the Levite who 

is in thy cities thou 

shalt not neglect : 

for he has no portion 

nor inheritance with 

thee. 

At the end of 
three years thou shalt 
bring out all the 
tithe of thy produce 
for that year, and 
place it in thy city. 
And the Levite, since 
he has no portion nor 
inheritance with thee, 
and the stranger, and 
the orphan, and the 
widow, who are in 
thy city, shall come 
in and eat to the full ; 
that Jahveh thy God 
may bless thee in all 
the works of thy 
hands which thou do- 
est (Deut. xiv. 22-29). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 125 

D provides that a tithe of the produce of the land, 
such as corn, wine, and oil, along with the firstlings of 
the herd and of the flock, shall be eaten yearly (except 
in the third year) at the central sanctuary as a joyful 
feast. The Levite is to be invited to share this feast. 
Every third year, however, the tithe is to be stored up 
for the benefit of the poor. If the sanctuary is too far 
to carry the tithe thither, it may be sold, and the money 
used to purchase the supplies for the feast. 

P (in Leviticus) declares that the produce of the flocks, 
as well as the produce of the land and of the tree, is to 
be tithed by taking every tenth animal, whether good 
or bad, as they pass in single file under the rod ; and 
this tithe belongs to Jahveh, that is, it is to be given 
to the priests. The tithe could only be redeemed by 
adding one-fifth to its value. In Numbers P prescribes 
that the tithe should be given to the Levites, who in 
turn should give a tithe of their tithe to the priests. 
Those tithes were a return for the service of the Le- 
vites and of the priests at the sanctuary. 

The difference here is of a most radical kind. The 
scope of the tithe is enlarged in P to include the 
flocks. But the important difference is that in the one 
case the offerer is to eat the tithe himself as a joyful 
feast, the Levite receiving a share only as a charitable 
gift ; in the other the tithe belongs entirely to the Le- 
vites and priests. It is to be further observed that 
(according to the traditional arrangement) D is the 



126 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



later code. A full discussion of the tithe and of the at- 
tempts to reconcile these passages may be found in 
Driver's '' Deuteronomy," p. i68ff.* 

2. THE LAW OF THE SABBATH YEAR. 

This law is found in all three codes as follows : 



JE D 

And for six years At the end of sev- 

thou shalt sow thy en years thou shalt 

land, and gather its make a release ; and 

produce; but the sev- this is the manner of 

enth(year) thou shalt the release : Every 

let it lie fallow. Thou creditor who has 



shalt let it rest, that 
the poor of thy peo- 
ple may eat ; and 
what they leave, the 
beast of the field 
shall eat. Likewise 
shalt thou do to thy 
vineyard and to thy 
oliveyard (Ex. xxiii. 

lO, II). 



made a loan to his 
neighbor shall re- 
lease it; he shall 
not exact payment 
of his neighbor and 
his brother ; for Jah- 
veh's release is pro- 



P(H) 
And Jahveh spoke 
unto Moses in Mount 
Sinai, saying, Speak 
unto the Israelites 
and say unto them, 
When ye come into 
the land which I 
shall give you, the 
land shall keep a sab- 
bath to Jahveh. Six 
years shalt thou sow 
thy field, and six 
years thou shalt 



claimed. He may prune thy vineyard, 
exact payment of the and thou shalt gather 
alien, but what thou its produce. But in 



* The difficulty has long been felt. Tobit (i. 7) tries to explain 
the difference in a way that has often been followed : " The tenth 
part of all mine increase I gave to the sons of Levi, who ministered 
at Jerusalem ; and the second tenth part I sold away, and went, 
and spent it each year at Jerusalem ; and the third I gave unto 
those unto whom it was meet." But there is no hint in Deuteron- 
omy of a second tithe. Tobit's third tithe is apparently the tithe 
of the third year of Deuteronomy. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 



127 



hast against thy brother, thou shalt re- 
lease. 

If there shall be among thee a poor 
man, one of thy brethren, in one of thy 
cities, in thy land which Jahveh thy God 
gives thee, thou shalt not harden thy 
heart, nor withdraw thy hand from thy poor 
brother; but thou shalt surely open thy 
hand to him, and shalt freely lend him 
sufficient for his need — whatever need he 
may have. Guard thyself, lest there be 
an evil thought in thy heart to say, The 
seventh year, the year of release, draws 
near ; and thy eye be evil towards thy poor 
brother, and thou give not to him ; he 
will cry to Jahveh against thee, and it 
will be sin in thee. Thou shalt freely give 
to him, and thy heart shall not be evil 
when thou givest to him ; for because of 
this thing Jahveh thy God will bless thee 
in all thy work and in all to which thou 
puttest thy hand. Because the poor will 
not cease from the land, therefore I com- 
mand thee saying, Thou shalt surely open 
thy hand to thy brother, to the low- 
ly and to the poor in thy land (Deut. xv. 
1-3. 7-1 1). 



the seventh year 
there shall be a sab- 
bath of sacred rest 
for the land, a sab- 
bath to Jahveh. Thy 
field thou shalt not 
sow, and thy vine- 
yard thou shalt not 
prune. The natural 
growth of thy harvest 
thou shalt not reap, 
and the grapes of thy 
unpruned vine thou 
shalt not gather; it 
shall be a year of sa- 
cred rest for the land. 
And the sabbath 
yield of the land shall 
be food for you, for 
thee and for thy ser- 
vant and for thy 
maid and for thy hire- 
ling and for thy visi- 
tors who sojourn with 
thee ; and for thy cat- 
tle and for the beast 
which is in thy land — 
all its produce shall be 
food (Lev. XXV. 1-7). 



JE provides that the land shall lie fallow every sev- 
enth year, the natural produce of that year being free 



128 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

to the poor. The produce of the vineyard and olive- 
yard were not to be gathered in that year, but like- 
wise were left for the poor. P is in close agreement 
with this provision in one respect ; namely, that no 
cultivation was to be carried on in the seventh year. 
But the institution is given a sacred character, *' the 
land shall keep a sabbath untojahveh"; and though 
there was to be no harvesting in that year, the natural 
yield might be eaten in the field by the owner of the 
land and his dependents, and by the domestic and wild 
animals. There is not a word about the poor.. D has 
nothing to say about the land ; the release has to do 
only with debts and slaves (for the latter, see below). 
All debts from one Hebrew to another were outlawed 
in that year, but the debts of a foreigner were not af- 
fected. The law recognizes the practical difficulty 
which at once arises,* and warns the people that they 
must not refuse to lend to the poor because the year 
of release was at hand. 

It does not follow that D does not know any sabbath 
year for the land, though it speaks of the year of re- 
lease (v. I.) as a new institution. But Exodus and 
Leviticus certainly deal with the same institution, and it 

* All modern laws for outlawing debts are based upon this code. 
Six years is the usual period during which an ordinary debt is col- 
lectible. But the difficulty suggested above is avoided by counting 
the year of release from the time the debt is contracted. The He- 
brews enjoined this method of reckoning for the release of slaves. 



THE MODERN POWT OF VIEW, 



129 



When thou shalt buy 
a Hebrew slave, he shall 
serve thee for six years ; 



P(H) 
And if thy brother 
(who is) with thee 
become poor, and 



is very dlfificult to explain these two codes if they are the 
work of the same man and were issued at virtually the 
same period. 

3. LAWS OF SLAVERY. 

D 
If thy brother, a 

Hebrew man or 

woman, be sold to 
and in the seventh year thee, he shall serve is sold to thee, thou 
he shall go forth free, thee for six years ; shalt not put upon 
without ransom. If but in the seventh him the service of a 
with his body (/. e. , year, thou shalt let slave. Like the hire- 
alone) he came in, with him depart from ling, like the so- 
his body he shall go thee free. And when j our ner, he shall be 
forth ; if he had a wife, thou lettest him with thee. Unto the 
then his wife shall go depart from thee year of jubilee he 
forth with hfm. If his free, thou shalt not shall serve with thee; 

let him depart emp- then he shall go 

ty : thou shalt load forth from thee, he 

him from thy flock and his children 

and from thy thresh- with him ; and he 

ing floor and from shall return to his 

thy wine fat — of 

whatever J a hv e h 

thy God has blessed 

thee, thou shalt give 

to him. And thou 

shalt remember that 

thou wast a slave in 
his master bring him the land of Egypt, of Egypt, they shall 
to the judge, and shall and Jahveh thy God not be sold as the 
bring him to the door ransomed thee: sale of a slave. 



master give him a wife, 
and she bear to him 
sons or daughters, the 
wife with her children 
shall belong to her 
master, and he shall go 
forth with his body. 
But if the slave shall 
say, I love my master, 
and my wife and my 
children ; I will not go 
forth free : then shall 



family, and to the 
possession of his 
fathers he shall re- 
turn. Since they 
are my servants 
whom I brought 
forth from the land 



I30 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



or to the doorpost, and 
his master shall bore 
his ear with an awl ; 
and he shall serve him 
for life. 

If a man shall sell his 
daughter for a slave, 
she shall not go forth 
as the men slaves do. 
If she is evil in the 
eyes of her master, who 
has espoused her to 
himself, then he shall 
let her be ransomed ; 
he shall have no right 
to sell her to a foreign 
people, in that he has 
deceived her. And if 
he shall espouse her to 
his son, according to 
the custom of daugh- 
ters shall he do to her. 
If he take to him an- 
other wife, her food, 
her clothing, and her 
marital rights he shall 
not decrease. And if he 
does not provide these 
three things for her, 
then she shall go forth 
ransom - free, without 
money (Ex. xxi. 2-1 1). 



therefore I com- 
mand thee this thing 
to-day. And it shall 
be if he says to thee, 
I will not go forth 
from thee, because 
he loves thee and 
thy household, hav- 
ing found it well to 
be with thee, then 
thou shalt take an 
awl, and place it in 
his ear and in the 
door, and he shall 
be thy slave for life. 
And thus thou shalt 
do also to thy maid- 
servant. It shall not 
be hard in thy eyes, 
when thou lettest 
him depart from 
thee free ; for with 
double the hire of a 
hireling he has 
served thee six 
years, and Jahveh 
thy God will bless 
thee in all thou 
doest (Deut. xv, 
12-18). 



And thy slaves, 
male and female 
which thou hast of 
the nations, who are 
round about you, of 
them shall ye buy 
slaves. And also 
of the sojourners 
who abide with you, 
of them and of their 
family which is with 
you, which they have 
borne in your land, 
shall ye buy, and 
they shall be a pos- 
session for you. 
And ye may be- 
queath them to your 
sons after you, to 
get a possession, for 
life ye shall get 
service of them. 
But your brethren 
the Israelites, each 
one with his brother, 
thou shalt not rule 
over him with rigor 
(Lev. XXV. 39-46). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 131 

D connects with the year of release of debts the manu- 
mission of Hebrew slaves. But there is this important 
distinction, that the year of release came for each slave 
at a different time; that is, he was set free after he had 
served six years. Perpetual slavery for debt was not 
to be permitted except it was voluntary. When the 
slave was freed the law required that he be furnished 
with such things as would be necessary for the re-es- 
tablishment of an independent life. 

This is a great restriction upon the earlier code 
which released only Hebrew men in the seventh year. 
The woman who was sold as a slave could only be 
released in case her master had married her,* and then 
failed either in respect to food, clothing, or duties of 
marriage. ' There is a further provision that if a master 
gives a wife to a slave who is single, the wife and 
children are not released in the seventh year. 

The Levitical law is markedly different. The mas- 
ter is forbidden to exact bond service of Hebrews. 
This law aims virtually to abolish the slavery of He- 
brews. They are to be dealt with as hired servants. 
Contrary to Exodus, the children are to be released 
with their fathers, but the release is in the year of jubi- 
lee, the fiftieth year instead of the seventh. It is not 
easy to see by what harmonistic ingenuity these codes 

* This passage (Ex. xxi. 8) is very obscure ; I have given the 
generally received reading, which seems to me most probably 
right. 



132 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



can be assigned to the same author, and to the same 
era. 



4. THE FIRST-BORN OF ANIMALS. 



JE 
So shall thou do 
with thy oxen and 
w i th thy sheep ; 
seven days it {i.e., 
the first-born) shall 
be with its dam : 
on the eighth 
day thou shalt 
give it to me 
(Ex. xxii. 30 ; cf. 
xiii. II f., xxxiv. 19 
—both in JE). 



D 



Every firstling which 
is born in thy herd and 
in thy flock, the males, 
thou shalt dedicate to 
Jahveh thy God. Thou 
shalt not work the first- 
ling of thy oxen, nor 
shear the firstling of thy 
sheep. Before Jahveh 
thy God thou shalt eat 
it, thou and thy house- 
hold, year by year, in 
the place which Jahveh 
chooses. But if there be in it any blemish, 
lameness or blindness, any evil blemish, thou 
shalt not sacrifice it to Jahveh thy God ; in thy 
city thou shalt eat it, the unclean and the 
clean alike (may eat), as (thou eatest) the roe- 
buck and the gazelle. Only its blood thou 
shalt not eat; upon the ground thou shalt 
pour it like water (Deut. xv. 19-23). 



But the firstling 
of thy oxen, or the 
firstling of thy sheep, 
or the firstling of thy 
goats, thou shalt not 
redeem ; they are 
holy. Their blood 
thou shalt sprinkle 
upon the altar, and 
their fat thou shalt 
burn— a fire offering 
for a sweet savor to 
Jahveh. But their 
flesh shall be thine, 
like the wave breast 
and Hke the light 
thigh it shall be 
thine (N u m. xviii. 
17, 18). 



The first male born to every cow or sheep was to be 
taken from its dam on the eighth day and given to the 
Lord, according to JE. D is more explicit, and adapted 
to a more advanced social order. As the sacrifice 
could only be eaten at the central sanctuary, the regu- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 133 

lation about seven days is abolished ; but the animal 
was not to be used as a source of profit. D expressly 
states that these firstlings are to be eaten as a sacri- 
ficial feast at the central sanctuary. Only in case the 
animal had a blemish, and so was unfit to serve as a 
sacrifice, was it permitted to be eaten at home. 

P forbids the redemption of these firstlings, and pro- 
vides that their blood must be sprinkled upon the altar, 
the fat burned for a fire offering — all this by priests ; 
but the flesh belonged to the priests. That the lay- 
man was to have nothing to do with the firstling it 
made clear in Lev. xxvii. 26, "" Only the firstling among 
beasts, which is made a firstling to Jahveh, no man 
shall dedicate it ; whether it be ox or sheep, it is Jah- 
veh's." This distinctly contradicts D, which says that 
each man shall dedicate his own firstlings. 

5. THE PILGRIM FEASTS. 

JE D. P 

Three times in Observe the month These are the 
the year thou shalt Abib, and prepare a feasts of Jahveh, holy- 
keep a feast to me. passover to Jahveh thy convocations which ye 
The feast of un- God ; for in the month shall convoke in their 
leavened bread Abib Jahveh thy God season. In the first 
thou shalt observe, brought thee out of month, on the four- 
Seven days shalt Egypt by night. And teenth day of the 
thou eat unleav- thou shalt sacrifice for month, between the 
ened bread as I the passover of Jahveh evenings, is Jahveh's 
have commanded thy God sheep and cat- passover. And on the 
thee, at the fixed tie in the place where fifteenth day of that 



134 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



time of the month 
of Abib ; for in it 
thou camest out 
of Egypt. None 
shall see my face 
empty. And the 
feast of the har- 
vest,the first- fruits 
of thy labor, which 
thou sowest in the 
field. And the 
feast of the in- 
gathering, at the 
end of the year, 
when thou gather- 
est thy labor from 
the field. Three 
times in the year 
all thy males shall 
appear before the 
Lord Jahveh (Ex. 
xxiii. 14-17). 



Jahveh thy God 
chooses to place his 
name. With it thou 
shalt not eat leav- 
ened bread ; seven days 
thou shalt eat with it 
unleavened bread, the 
bread of affliction — 
for in haste thou went- 
est out of the land of 
Egypt — that thou may- 
est remember the day 
of thy going forth from 
Egypt all the days of 
thy life. And leaven 
shall not be seen to 
thee in all thy borders 
for seven days. There 
shall not remain till 
morning any of the 
flesh which thou sac- 
rificest in the evening 
of the first day. Thou 
shalt not be allowed to 
sacrifice the passover 
in one of thy cities 
which Jahveh thy God 
gives thee; but at 
the place where Jah- 
veh thy God chooses 
to place his name, 
there shalt thou sac- 



month is Jahveh's 
feast of unleavened 
bread; seven days ye 
shall eat unleavened 
bread. On the first 
day ye shall have a 
holy convocation, ye 
shall do no kind of 
work. And ye shall 
bring near Jahveh's 
fire offerings seven 
days ; on the seventh 
day is a holy convoca- 
tion, ye shall do no 
kind of work. 

When ye come into 
the land which I give 
you, and reap its har- 
vests, then shall ye 
bring in the first sheaf 
of your harvest to the 
priest; and he shall 
wave the sheaf before 
Jahveh for your wel- 
fare ; the day after the 
Sabbath the priest 
shall wave it. 

And ye shall reckon 
you from the day after 
the Sabbath, from the 
day of your bringing 
the wave sheaf, seven 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 



135 



rifice the passover 
at evening, about sun- 
set, the time of thy 
going out of Egypt. 
And thou shalt cook 
and eat in the place 
which Jahveh thy God 
chooses. And in the 
morning thou shalt re- 
turn to thy home. Six 
days shalt thou eat un- 
leavened bread ; and 
on the seventh day is 
a holy assembly to Jah- 
veh — thou shalt do no 
work. 

Seven weeks shalt 
thou reckon — from the 
beginning of cutting 
the corn thou shalt be- 
gin to reckon seven 
weeks. And thou shalt 
prepare a feast of 
weeks to Jahveh thy 
God ; after the measure 
of the free-will offering 
of thy hand, which 
thou shalt give, as Jah- 
veh thy God blesses 
thee. And thou shalt 
rejoice before Jahveh 
thy God, thou and thy 



Sabbaths in full num- 
ber, until the day after 
the seventh Sabbath 
ye shall reckon fifty 
days ; and ye shall 
bring near a fresh- veg- 
etable offering to Jah- 
V e h. From your 
dwelling ye shall bring 
two wave loaves — two 
tenths of an ephah 
of fine meal they shall 
be— they shall be 
baked with leaven as 
first-fruits to Jahveh, 

[With this were to be 
sacrificed seven lambs, 
one bullock, and two 
rams, as a burnt offer- 
ing to Jahveh ; also a 
goat and two lambs as 
a peace offering.] 

But on the tenth of 
this seventh month is 
the day of atonement ; 
it shall be a holy con- 
vocation to you ; ye 
shall humble your- 
selves, and bring near 
a fire offering to Jah- 
veh. 

On the fifteenth day 



136 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



son and thy daughter, 
and thy manservant 
and thy maidservant, 
and the Levite who is 
in thy city, and the 
stranger and the or- 
phan and the widow, 
who are among thee — 
in the place where Jah- 
veh thy God chooses 
to place his name. And 
thou shalt remember 
that thou wast a ser- 
vant in Egypt, and 
thou shalt observe to 
do these statutes. 

The feast of booths 
thou shalt prepare for 
thee seven days, when 
thou gatherest from thy 
threshing - fi o o r and 
from thy wine fat. And 
thou shalt rejoice in . 
thy feast, thou and thy 
son and thy daughter, 
and thy manservant 
and thy maidservant, 
and the Levite and the 
stranger, and the or- 
phan and the widow, 
who are in thy city. 
Seven days thou shalt 



of this seventh month 
is the seven days' feast 
of booths to Jahveh. 
On the first day is a 
holy convocation, ye 
shall not do any kind 
of work. Seven days 
ye shall bring near a 
fire offering to Jah- 
veh ; on the eighth 
day ye shall have a 
holy convocation : ye 
shall bring near a fire 
offering to Jahveh. It 
is a holy festival, ye 
shall not do any kind 
of work. 

But on the fifteenth 
day of the seventh 
month, when ye have 
gathered the produce 
of the land, ye shall 
keep a feast to Jah- 
veh seven days. On 
the first day shall be 
a sacred rest, and on 
the eighth day a sa- 
cred rest. And on the 
first day ye shall take 
you the fruit of good 
trees, branches of 
palms, and boughs of 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 



137 



keep a feast to Jahveh 
thy God in the place 
which Jahveh chooses ; 
for Jahveh thy God 
will bless thee in all 
thy produce and in all 
the labor of thy hands, 
and thou shalt be joy- 
ful. Three times in the 
year shall all thy males 
see the face of Jahveh 
thy God in the place 
which he shall choose 
— in the feast of un- 
leavened bread, and in 
the feast of weeks, and 
in the feast of booths ; 
and he shall not see 
the face of Jahveh emp- 
ty; each one accord- 
ing to the gift of his 
hand, according to the 
blessing of Jahveh thy 
God which he gave 
thee (Deut. xvi. 1-17). 



thickly- foliaged trees, 
and of brook willows, 
and ye shall rejoice 
before Jahveh your 
God seven days. And 
ye shall keep it as a 
feast to Jahveh seven 
days in the year— an 
eternal statute for 
your generations — in 
the seventh month ye 
shall keep it. 

In the booths ye 
shall live for seven 
days— every native in 
Israel shall live in the 
booths, that your de- 
scendants may know 
that I made the Israel- 
ites live in booths 
when I brought them 
from the land of Egypt 
— I Jahveh your God 
(Lev.xxiii.4-11,15-17, 
27, 34-36, 39-43). 



In JE, the three annual pilgrim feasts ^ are the 
feast of unleavened bread, the harvest festival — when 
the first-fruits were offered — and the feast of ingather- 



* Heb. , hag, a festival for whose celebration the people went on 
pilgrimages to sanctuaries, 



138 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

ing. All the males were to keep these feasts before 
Jahveh, i. e., at any sanctuary that might be conven- 
ient. In Ex. xxxiv. 22, we find the feast of weeks 
named instead of the harvest festival; but it is evident 
that the same thing is meant, as it is connected in both 
cases with the first-fruits. The identity of phraseology 
in the two sections of JE (Ex. xxlii. 14-17 ; xxxiv. 
18, 20, 22-25) offers material for reflection to the ob- 
servant student. 

D calls the feast of unleavened bread the Passover, 
and gives much more detailed regulations for its ob- 
servance. The Passover festival must be kept at the 
central sanctuary. This law is evidently dependent 
upon JE's account of the institution of the two fes- 
tivals. The harvest festival, or that of the first-fruits, 
is in D the feast of weeks. The time is fixed by the 
ripening of the corn ; but the feast is kept seven weeks 
after the corn is ripe. And this reference to the ripen- 
ing of the corn is the only hint of first-fruits in this 
code. In place of the feast of the ingathering we have 
the feast of booths or tabernacles. The time is fixed 
but vaguely, after the harvest is gathered. There is 
no explanation of the booths. Both these festivals are 
to be joyous occasions, and are to be characterized by 
liberality toward the widow, the fatherless, and other 
poor. The Deuteronomic code does not precisely fix 
the date of any of the festivals ; even the Passover 
is left with no more definite date than the month 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 139 

Abib.* All the festivals were to be observed at the 
central sanctuary. 

P (in Leviticus) makes a distinction between the feasts 
of the Passover and unleavened cakes, and prescribes 
the exact day for each. The date of the feast of 
weeks is more exactly determined than in D. The 
first sheaf of the harvest was to be given to the priest 
to be waved before Jehovah on the day after the Sab- 
bath. Seven weeks after this day is the feast of weeks. 
The name feast of weeks is indeed not used here ; but 
the details are given as to the offerings, which are 
both animal and vegetable. The feast of weeks is fixed 
by P upon the fifteenth day of the seventh month. 
There is an appendix to the feast regulations which 
gives still another version of the law for the feast of 
booths : fruits, boughs and branches were to be used 
as symbols of joy, and the people were to dwell in 
booths for seven days. There the feast is given an 
historical connection, being derived from the Exodus. 

* In the early codes the feasts were movable, because they were 
connected with the harvests, and the time of observance was de- 
pendent upon the ripening of the harvest. In P they have become 
fixed (see Addis, " Documents of the Hexateuch," II., p. 176). Our 
Thanksgiving Day is left to the civil authorities to fix according to 
the time the harvests are ripe, and this would be different in differ- 
ent years and in different parts of the country. But in actual 
practice the date has become fixed at a time when the harvests of 
the whole land have been gathered. 



140 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

In Num. xxviii , xxix.,"^ P is chiefly occupied with the 
regulations for the sacrifices to be offered on each day 
of the feasts. JE and D have no regulations about 
these. Leviticus prescribes only that a fire offering be 
made each day for the feasts of unleavened bread and 
of booths ; but for the feast of weeks, two loaves of 
bread, seven lambs, one bullock, two rams, one goat 
and two lambs (a peace offering) are to be offered. 
Numbers requires two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, 
and one goat, for each of the seven days of the feast of 
unleavened cakes, besides the regular daily offering of 
the morning: for the festival of the first-fruits, two bul- 
locks, one ram, seven lambs, one goat, are prescribed; 
while during the feast of tabernacles there was a total 
of seventy-one bullocks, fifteen rams, one hundred and 
five lambs, and eight goats. This law is concerned 
with the priestly celebration, and has little concern 
with the people's use of the festival. 

It is very difficult to explain how one individual, at 
one time, could be responsible for such a varying ec- 
clesiastical year as that prescribed in these various 
codes. The variations are perfectly natural if we sup- 
pose the three codes to be products either of three 
different periods in Hebrew history, each code adapted 
to the peculiar conditions of its period, or of different 

* I have not deemed it necessary to quote this elaborate, repe- 
titious passage ; the summary of its contents given here is quite 
sufficient for my purpose. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 



[41 



schools within the Jewish Church. It is especially 
difficult to understand, in this and other cases, how 
Deuteronomy could have been a later law than the 
Priest-code. 



6. PRIESTLY REVENUES. 



D 



There shall be no portion nor 
inheritance for the priests, the 
Levites, the whole tribe of Levi ; 
the fire offerings of Jahveh and 
his inheritance they shall eat. 
But lie shall have no inheritance 
among his brothers ; Jahveh is 
his inheritance as he spoke to 
him. And this shall be the due 
of the priests from the people, 
from those offering sacrifices, 
whether cattle or sheep : he 
shall give to the priest the 
shoulder and the cheeks and the 
maw ; the first of thy corn, thy 
wine, and thy oil, and the first 
fleece of thy flocks, thou shalt 
give to him. For Jahveh thy 
God has chosen him from all thy 
tribes to stand to minister in the 
name of Jahveh, he and his sons 
all the days. 

And if the Levite shall come 
from one of thy cities, from any 
part of Israel where he sojourns, 



And the right shoulder from 
the sacrifice of your peace offer- 
ings ye shall give to the priest as 
a heave offering. Whoever of 
the sons of Aaron shall offer the 
blood and the fat of the peace 
offering, to him shall belong the 
right shoulder for a share. For 
the wave breast and the heave 
shoulder I have taken from the 
Israelites, for the sacrifice of 
their peace offerings, and I have 
given them to Aaron the priest 
and to his sons from the Israel- 
ites by an eternal statute (Lev. 
vii. 32-34). 

And Jahveh said to Aaron, 
Thou and thy sons and thy 
father's house with thee shall 
bear the guilt of the sanctuary ; 
and thou and thy sons with thee 
shall bear the guilt of your 
priesthood. And also thy breth- 
ren the tribe of Levi, the tribe of 
thy father, bring thou near with 



142 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

and shall come in all the desire thee, that they may attach them- 
of his soul to the place which selves to thee and minister to 
Jahveh chooses, then he shall thee; but thou and thy sons 
minister in the name of Jahveh, with thee shall be before the 
as the rest of his brethren the tent of testimony. 
Levites who stand there before And Jahveh said to Aaron, 
Jahveh ; like portions shall they Behold, I have given thee the 
eat, besides his sellings (Deut. charge of my heave offering, all 
xviii. 1-8). the holy things of the Israelites, 

to thee and to thy sons have I 
given them as a holy due by an 
eternal statute. This shall be 
thine from the holiest things from the fire : every holy gift, every 
vegetable offering, every sin offering, and every guilt offering, which 
they shall render to me — the holiest things shall be for thee and 
thy sons. Of the holiest things thou shalt eat, every male shall eat 
it, it is holy to thee. And this is for thee : their heave gift, all the 
wave offerings of the Israelites ; to thee and to thy sons and to thy 
daughters with thee have I given them by an eternal statute ; every 
clean one in thy house may eat it. All the best oil, and all the best 
wine and corn, their first-fruits which they give to Jahveh, to thee 
have I given them. The first-born of everything which is in their 
land, which they bring to Jahveh, is thine ; every clean one in thy 
house may eat it. Every devoted thing in Israel is thine. Every 
first-born of all flesh, of man or beast, which they bring near to 
Jahveh is thine ; but the first-born of man thou must redeem, and 
the first-born of unclean cattle thou s'halt redeem. And their re- 
demption — thou shalt redeem from a month old — at thy valuation 
shall be five shekels of silver — the holy shekel which is twenty 
gerahs. But the first-born of oxen, or the first-born of sheep, or the 
first-born of goats, thou shalt not redeem : they are holy ; their 
blood thou shalt sprinkle upon the altar, and their fat thou shalt 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 143 

burn, a fire offering, a sweet savor to Jahveh. And their flesh 
shall be thine : like the wave breast and the right shoulder, it shall 
be thine. All the holy wave offerings which the Israelites offer to 
Jahveh, I have given them to thee and to thy sons and to thy 
daughters with thee by an eternal statute, an eternal covenant of 
salt it is before Jahveh, to thee and to thy seed with thee. 

And Jahveh said to Aaron, In their land thou shalt not inherit ; 
and thou shalt have no portion among them : I am thy portion and 
thy inheritance among the Israelites (Num. xviii. if., 8-20). 

In D, priest and Levite are synonymous, that is, every 
Levite is ipso facto a priest, and he is not to be denied 
priestly duties and revenues if he comes from the coun- 
try districts to the sanctuary at Jerusalem. The shoul- 
der, the two cheeks and the maw of all animals offered 
in sacrifice, the first-fruits of all vegetable produce, 
and the first fleece of the sheep shall be given to him. 
The Levite who came from the country districts, who 
had been serving presumably at the local sanctuaries, 
was to have a full share of the priestly dues in addition 
to whatever else he might possess. The expression, 
** besides his sellings," is hopelessly obscure. We 
cannot tell what is referred to precisely; but the term 
must cover some property of the Levite apart from that 
coming from the temple service. 

In Numbers we find a still more developed condition. 
The sons of Aaron only are the priests, and the other 
Levites are subordinates, restricted in their service at 
the sanctuary. The revenues of the priests are now 
the whole of the offerings, the heave offerings, the veg- 



144 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

etable offerings, sin offerings, guilt offerings, besides 
the best of the oil, of the vintage, of the corn, and all 
the first-fruits. All the first-born belong to the priests, 
and the people were required to pay redemption money 
for the first-born of man and of unclean animals. 

It is noteworthy that in the earhest code (JE), though 
priests are mentioned, there is not a word about any 
priestly revenues. 

7. A most instructive case, which shows very clearly 
the independent origin of the two earlier codes, is found 
in the Decalogue. Every one knows that we have two 
recensions of the Ten Words, but every one does not 
appear to appreciate the significance of the fact. If in 
any part of the Old Testament we should expect a 
standard and unvarying text, reaching back to the days 
of its origin, it would be in the case of the Decalogue. 
It is said of both codes that they were written di- 
rectly by God (Ex. xxxi. 18; xxxiv. I, 4, 2%\ Deut. x. 
4). While it is presumably true that no one interprets 
this expression literally, still it cannot be denied that 
the statement shows the high reverence in which these 
tables of the law were held. Yet we find that the au- 
thors or editors of the different books did not scruple 
to put forth versions which do not agree. 

The most radical difference is in the law of the Sab- 
bath, but there is considerable variation also in the law 
against covetousness. The two versions of these two 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 145 

laws are placed side by side, the more notable differ- 
ences being put in italics in the Deuteronomic version. 

Ex. XX. Deut. v. 

Remember the Sabbath day Keep the Sabbath day to sanc- 

to make it holy. Six days thou tify it, as Jahveh thy God co?n- 

shalt labor and do all thy work, manded thee. Six days thou 

But the seventh day is the Sab- shalt labor and do all thy work, 

bath of Jahveh thy God. Thou But the seventh day is the Sab- 

shalt do no work, thou and thy bath of Jahveh thy God. Thou 

son and thy daughter, thy man- shalt do no work, thou and thy 

servant and thy maidservant, son and thy daughter, atid thy 

and thy cattle, and thy guest manservant and thy maidser- 

who is in thy gates. For in six vant, and thy ox and thy ass 

days Jahveh made the heavens and all thy cattle, and thy guest 

and the earth and the sea, and who is in thy gates ; in order 

all that is in them ; and he that thy manservant and thy 

rested on the seventh day. maidservant may rest as well 

Therefore Jahveh blessed the as thou. And reme7nber that 

Sabbath day to make it holy. thou wast a servant in the land 

Thou shalt not covet thy of Egypt, and that Jahveh thy 

neighbor's house. Thou shalt God brought thee out from there 

not covet thy neighbor's wife, by a strong hand and by an out- 

nor his manservant nor his stretched arm. Therefore Jah- 

maidservant, nor his ox nor his veh thy God coimnanded thee to 

ass, nor anything which is thy make the Sabbath day. 

neighbor's (Vs. 8-1 1, 17). Thou shalt not covet thy 

neighbor's wife. Thou shalt 
not desire thy neighbor's house, 
his field, nor his manservant nor his maidservant, nor his ox nor 

his ass, nor anything which is thy neighbor's (Vs. 12-15, 21). 

There is a radical difference here in that the divine 



146 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

institution of the Sabbath is placed on different 
grounds : in the one case man is to do no labor because 
God rested from His creative work on the seventh day, 
in the other that the servants might have rest as well 
as their masters. Both of these might indeed be rea- 
sons for observing the Sabbath ; but they could not 
both be the ground of its divine institution. It is cer- 
tainly quite inconceivable that Moses should have been 
responsible for both of these versions. 

If one examines the peculiarities of the Deuteronomic 
version it will be seen that the additions are quite in 
the spirit of the Deuteronomic writer. His interest is 
always on the side of the weak as against the strong. 
It is but natural, therefore, that he should place the in- 
stitution of the Sabbath on humanitarian grounds. 
The version in Exodus is connected with the earliest 
code of law. But the institution of the Sabbath is 
based on the account of the creation in six days; and 
this account is the later version of the creation story — 
that ascribed to the priestly writer. It may seem at 
first sight as if this is a case in which modern criticism 
comes to grief. In fact, however, it shows the manner 
in which these variations originated. 

Let us suppose that the original form of this law was 
simply, " Keep the Sabbath day to make it holy." 
The author of Deuteronomy not only states what the 
laws are, but delights also to make appeals for their 
observance, and to give reasons for doing so. The 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 147 

most common reason for observing the laws was to him 
the divine deliverance from Egypt. This deliverance 
would therefore be brought into connection with the 
Sabbath law. There had already grown around the 
ancient law some details of its application. The Deu- 
teronomist makes his characteristic addition. 

The later writer who told the story of the creation 
connected the institution of the Sabbath with that 
event (Gen.i. i-ii. 4*). To him the Sabbath was older 
than Moses, as old, in fact, as man himself. He there- 
fore added to the earlier code of the law a reason for 
its institution in agreement with his conception of the 
creation of the world. This may seem to be a mere 
supposition; but it has this value, that it explains the 
facts before us. Indeed, there is good reason to believe 
that all of the commandments in their original form were 
terse prohibitions and injunctions, and the promises 
and detailed explanations were additions made later 
for their better understanding. The student of New 
Testament times knows that such additions to the law 
continued up to that period, though, of course, these 
did not get a place in the canon. 

Our Lord's statement that the Sabbath was made 
for man, and not man for the Sabbath, would seem to 
have its basis in the Deuteronomic version; and it is a 
great pity that it is not that version which is in com- 
mon use in the Christian Church. If God did not 
create the world in six days and rest on the seventh, 



148 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

the ground of the institution as given in Exodus disap- 
pears. No discovery, and no criticism, can ever inval- 
idate the ground given in Deuteronomy, because it is 
based on that eternally valid law, " Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself." 

Enough cases have now been cited to make it evi- 
dent that the theory that the whole body of law in the 
Pentateuch is the work of one man, in one age, is be- 
set with the most perplexing difficulties.* The diffi- 
culties would not be much less if we were to enlarge our 
investigation and consider the many cases in whicli the 
laws in the parallel codes are in close agreement. The 
facts which a comparative study of these laws reveals 
are the more perplexing to the student who is disposed 
to accept the verdict of the Anglican bishops, that ex- 
ternal evidence is to be given due weight; for there is 
no doubt that the laws were generally ascribed to 
Moses. We have already seen that while the Penta- 
teuch as a whole cannot be regarded as a Mosaic work, 
even on the ground of the Hebrew tradition, yet that 
same tradition does ascribe the law to Moses. The 
difficulty is therefore of a disagreement of the contents 
of the laws with the opinion as to their origin held by 
those who incorporated the laws into their narratives. 

* Prof. G. L. Robinson has published an article in The Expositor, 
Am. Ed., November, I898, in which he seeks to show that there are 
no serious discrepancies or contradictions in these codes. It cannot 
be said, however, that he has made out a very strong case. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 149 

The laws in JE ( Ex. xx.-xxiii., xxxiv.) are the simplest 
and the earliest. It may be well to examine them to 
see what aid we can get from their contents to fix the 
date of this particular code. It is desirable to keep in 
mind the fact that these laws are said to have been 
given directly after the successful flight from Egypt. 
There was then gathered at the mountain a large com- 
pany of nomads, many of whom had been engaged in 
slave service but a few weeks before. 

Now, there are many features in these laws which 
disclose a very different situation. The slave who 
elects to stay with his master was to stand up against 
the djor or doorpost to have his ear pierced (Ex. xxi. 
6). Manifestly, this expression presupposes houses as 
dwellings, not tents. The appointment of a place of 
refuge (xxi. 13) presupposes a life with a fixed habitat. 
The laws concerning the compensation for a destroyed 
field or vineyard, or standing corn (xxii. 5,6) presuppose 
agricultural life as an existing institution. So also do 
the offering of the first-fruits and of the liquors (xxii. 
29 ; xxiii. 19), and the Sabbath year in which the land 
is to lie fallow (xxiii. loff.), the feasts of harvest and 
of ingathering {ib., v. 16). 

Not only do such details as these indicate that these 
laws were put into their present form for a people who 
had already passed from the purely nomadic to the ag- 
ricultural stage of life, but the whole tenor of the laws 
suggests that the people for whom they were formu- 



150 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

lated were in a settled state of life in a fixed place of 
abode. The state of bondage in Egypt is looked upon 
as a condition of the distant past. The attempt to ex- 
plain these facts on the ground that the laws were 
given by Moses, not for the present condition, but for 
the future condition, when the Israelites should be es- 
tablished in Canaan, and are therefore anticipatory, 
breaks down at the start. For it has been pointed out 
that the laws presuppose agricultural life as already 
existing. 

But there is a still more serious difficulty. The an- 
ticipatory theory applies with much more reason to the 
Deuteronomic and priestly codes, where, in fact, we 
frequently read that such and such is to be the law 
when the people shall have entered into their land. 
Now one anticipatory code we could readily understand, 
coming from a man with the foresight and forethought 
of Moses; but three anticipatory codes, often at vari- 
ance with each other, only remove the difficulty to an- 
other sphere; and certainly such an explanation does 
not testify to the fulness of Moses' inspiration. The 
establishment of a new law without repeal of an exist- 
ing law, or even a reference to it, is difficult to con- 
ceive ; and in the canon all these laws stand on the 
same plane, though it is not possible that all should 
have been put into effect at the same time. 

Are we then reduced to the alternatives of holding to 
the Mosaic authorship of these laws in spite of the great 



FHE MODERN- POINT OF VIEW. 151 

difficulties involved, or else of holding that their ascrip- 
tion to Moses by the compiler is either an inexcusable 
error or a deliberate misrepresentation of facts ? By 
no means. The Jewish tradition which represents 
Moses as the author of all Hebrew law has unquestion- 
ably a solid basis of fact. Moses appears at the outset 
as the great judge. Before the reputed delivery of the 
law to Moses, we find Jethro visiting his son-in-law, 
and finding him so engrossed with the adjustment of 
the disputes of the Hebrews that he was likely to break 
down (Ex. xviii.). Now it is well known that the first 
and highest form of law is the decision of the chief 
judge. In the United States, a decision of the Su- 
preme Court has a greater legal authority than an Act 
of Congress. In fact this Court has often set a legis- 
lative act aside, and frequently there is great uncer- 
tainty about an ordinance ; for until this court has 
passed upon an Act of Congress no one knows whether 
it will stand as law or not. 

There is preserved in the Bible an illustration of 
the manner in which the laws of Moses probably 
first originated. Zelophehad, a Manassite, had died 
leaving daughters, but no sons. His daughters de- 
manded that a possession be given to them. Moses 
took the case before Jehovah and decided that their 
claim was just, and from that established the law of 
inheritance (Num. xxvii. i-ii): with this further re- 
striction, that daughters who inherited property un- 



152 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

der this law should forfeit the property if they married 
outside of their tribe (Num. xxxvi.). 

The history of David furnishes us with a similar case. 
He decided that the two hundred who had been too 
exhausted to go to the end of the pursuit after the 
Amalekites should have as full a share of the booty as 
the others : '* And it was so from that day forward, that 
he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel, unto 
this day" (I. Sam. xxx. 25). 

The decisions of Moses, sitting as the supreme judge, 
were the basis of Hebrew law ; but there must have 
been a continual development, as further decisions of 
new cases came up before the successors of the first 
and greatest judge. If a code of laws had been formu- 
lated soon after the Hebrews were settled in their pos- 
sessions in Canaan, the groundwork of that law must 
have been Mosaic, however it was developed to meet 
new conditions. The basis of the code of the cove- 
nant may therefore be Mosaic, even though it did not 
take its present form until long after Moses' time. 
When the Jahvist was writing his history of Israel, 
how could he do otherwise than ascribe the existing 
code of laws to the great law-giver ? 

The laws of Deuteronomy are based upon the code 
of the covenant. They are at many points more elab- 
orate and definite, and new laws to meet the new re- 
quirements of a more developed life find their place. 
These additions are the result of a long accumulation 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 153 

of judicial decisions ; but tlie final codifier would have 
seemed intolerably arrogant to his contemporaries if 
he had associated any other name than Moses with 
those laws. 

The student of Hebrew uses to-day the twenty-sixth 
edition of Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar. It has been 
many years since the book received its last revision at 
the hand of its author. The present grammar contains 
a large amount of material of which Gesenius knew 
nothing. These additions and changes have been 
necessary to keep the book abreast of the times. But 
one reading the book has no means of knowing what 
belongs to the original author, and what is the result 
of successive editings. Nevertheless, he feels that he 
is committing no sin when he calls the book Gesenius's 
Grammar ; and that is, as a matter of fact, its usual 
designation. 

The Priest-code offers much more serious difficulties. 
It not only is not consistent with the other codes, but, 
as we have seen, is not always consistent with itself. 
These inconsistencies are, however, easily explained 
on the probable hypothesis that the Priest-code, like 
the civil code, was the result of a long growth, there 
being no pains to reconcile the earlier and the later por- 
tions. Some portions of P may be as early as Moses. 
But the date of the completed code, as we now have 
it, is not so easily ascertainable, and it is not easy to 
find a satisfactory Mosaic basis for it. While it is true 



154 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

that a large number of critics at the present day regard 
this code in its present form as a post-exilic product, 
there are some who adhere to the view of Dillmann 
that it is pre-exiHc. It does not fall to us to attempt 
to decide this question ; but it is desirable to set forth 
some of the facts which anyone must reckon with who 
attempts to settle the date of this code. 

The attitude of the greatest of the pre-exilic proph- 
ets is extremely hard to reconcile with the theory of 
the Mosaic origin of the Priest-code. On the face of 
it there seems to be a strong antipathy toward the 
ceremonial law as such. The following passages will 
repay careful consideration : 

" I hate, I scorn your feasts, and I delight not in your sacred as- 
semblies. If ye offei* to me burnt offerings and your vegetable 
offerings, I will not favor them, and your fat peace offerings I will 
not regard. Take away from me the noise of thy songs, and the 
melody of thy viols let me not hear " (Amos v. 21-23). 

" For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice : knowledge of God, rather 
than burnt offerings " (Hosea vi, 6 ; cf. I. Sam. xv. 22; Matt. vii. 2 iff.; 
ix. 13; xii. 3ff.). 

" With what shall I come before Jahveh ? With what shall I 
bow down to the high God } Shall I come before him with burnt 
offerings, with calves a year old ? Will Jahveh be pleased with 
thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil ? Shall I give my 
firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of 
my soul ? O man, he has made known to thee what is good : and 
what does Jahveh demand of thee but to do justice, and to love 
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Mich. vi. (y-%). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 155 

"Why is there to me the multitude of your sacrifices, saith Jah- 
veh ? I am satiated with burnt offerings, rams, and fat beasts : 
and I Kke not the blood of bullocks and rams and goats. When 
ye come to see my face, who has asked this of your hands — to 
trample my courts ? Bring me no more empty offerings ; incense 
is an abomination to me ; new moon and sabbath, the convoking of 
assemblies — I cannot endure sin and sacred assembly. Your new 
moons and your fixed feasts my soul hates ; they have become a 
burden upon me, which I am weary of bearing" (Isa. i. 11-14). 

" Why now does incense from Sheba come to me ? and sweet 
cane from a distant land ? Your burnt offerings are no delight, 
and your sacrifices are not agreeable to me" (Jer. vi. 20). 

It is true that these passages are often explained as 
referring to the abuse of the sacrificial system. Un- 
doubtedly it was abused in the time of the prophets, as 
in the time of our Lord. But if the Priest-code had 
been known by these prophets to be a work of Moses, 
a work of divine sanction and authority, would they 
have spoken in such a way as to leave in doubt, to say 
the least, their meaning? There are, however, two 
passages which are not susceptible of such an easy ex- 
planation. 

" Did ye bring me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the 
wilderness, O house of Israel ?' (Amos v. 25) — evidently implying a 
negative answer. " Thus saith Jahveh Sabaoth the God of Israel : 
Add to your sacrifices and eat flesh ; for I did not speak to your 
fathers, nor did I command them, in the day of my bringing them 
from the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice " 
(Jer. vii. 2 if.). 



156 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

These statements are quite at variance with the 
priestly conception of the law as originating at the 
very dawn of the sojourn in the wilderness. 

It must be remembered that the substance of the 
priestly code is fairly summed up in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, ''without shedding of blood there is no re- 
mission of sins." It is quite impossible to ascribe such 
a doctrine to the prophets quoted above. This is a 
case, and by no means the only one, where Jewish 
tradition has put an unnecessary burden upon the 
Christian conscience, in that it represents the prophets 
as assailing the institutions of Moses. If the Priest-code 
is a product of the post-exilic age, the difficulty at once 
disappears of itself. The voice of prophecy died out in 
that period. In Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the 
voice is feeble as compared with Isaiah and Amos. In 
the age of the Maccabees the people lament that there 
is no prophet to tell them what to do with the stones 
they had pulled down from the altar (I. Mac. iv. 46 ; 
cf. ix. 27). But their conception of the prophet shows 
how little they understood the greatness of their own 
prophets of the past. Prophecy as a divine institution 
belongs to the pre-exilic and the exilic age. The re- 
ligion of the Jews in the post-exilic age became from 
the start sacerdotal. The Priest-code got a hold then, 
and kept its hold, and was in full force at the advent 
of our Lord. 

There is no reason to doubt that the sacerdotal sys- 



THE MODERN- POINT OF VIEW. 157 

tem of the Jews was of divine origin. But the priestly 
and prophetic find no reconciliation in the Old Testa- 
ment ; whether they waged war in the same period, as 
Jewish tradition requires us to hold, or were the prod- 
ucts of successive ages, as modern criticism holds, the 
two systems find a harmonious place side by side only 
in Christianity. It certainly is easier to believe that 
God gave to each age what was best for it — so the 
prophets to one age, and the priests to another — than 
that He at one time raised up both prophets and priests 
at warfare with each other. 

The nearest approach in the Old Testament to a 
reconciliation between these two religious institutions 
is in the prophet Ezekiel. He was priest and prophet 
both. He belonged to the highest family of priests, 
that of Zadok. Jeremiah was a priest, too, but the 
prophet in him buries the priest entirely out of sight. 
But in Ezekiel, while he was a real prophet, though not 
a great one, the priest, too, is always in evidence. If 
therefore any prophet would have had a veneration for 
a priestly law dating back to Moses, Ezekiel would 
have been that one. But the fact is that this prophet 
by the Chebar drew up a priestly law of his own, and 
that quite different from the Priest-code. This is not 
less remarkable when we recall the circumstances 
under which this prophet formulated his law. 

After the fall of Jerusalem, Ezekiel, in confident ex- 
pectation that the exiles would be restored to their 



158 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

own land, drew up a constitution for the new state. 
His interest was largely in the ceremonial fabric. 
Ezekiel marks a transition from the prophetic code of 
Deuteronomy to the Priest-code. We have already 
seen that in the former every Leyite is at least poten- 
tially a priest, while in the latter, only the family of 
Aaron are priests, the mass of the Levites doing the 
common service at the sanctuary. Ezekiel explains 
the transition. The Levites had served as priests at 
the local shrines, the high places, and for this offence 
they are reduced, having oversight at the gates of the 
house, and ministering in the house : " They shall slay 
the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people" 
(Ezek. xliv. ii). 

The offering for the day of atonement in Ezekiel 
(xlv. i8ff.), is a young bullock, whose blood is to be 
placed upon the doorposts of the temple, upon the 
four corners of the ledges of the altar, and upon the 
posts of the gate of the inner court. Moreover, in 
Ezekiel, this day of atonement comes twice a year : 
on New Year's day, and on the first day of the seventh 
month.^ 

In Lev. xvi. we find a very elaborate ritual for this 
day, which is the tenth day of the seventh month. 
Besides the bullock there were two goats, one the 
scapegoat, the other a burnt offering. The blood of 

* Adopting in Ezek. xlv. 20 the more probable text of the LXX.: 
see Davidson, " Camb. Bib.," in loc. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 159 

the bullock and of the goat was to be sprinkled upon 
the mercy-seat and upon the horns of the altar. 

Ezekiel forbids a priest to marry any divorced 
woman, or any widow save that of a priest (xliv. 22). 
He makes no allusion anywhere to a high priest. In 
Leviticus the priests are forbidden to marry a harlot 
or any one divorced ; but they are permitted to marry 
widows (xxi. 7) ; the high priest, however, is permitted 
to marry no one but a Jewish virgin"^ (v. 14). 

Many other indications point to the late date of this 
law. There is no evidence in the pre-exilic history or 
literature of the existence of this code, while there are 
many things done which are at variance with its regu- 
lations. Kings offer sacrifice; many served as priests 
who were not even of the Levitical stock ; both Joshua 
(Ex. xxxiii. 11) and Samuel (I. Sam. iii. 3ff.) performed 
functions in the sanctuary which this code permits only 
the Levites to do ; the Ark was taken into battle, and 
when it was carried back, Uzzah, who was neither 
priest nor Levite, was its guardian. -!- 

On the other hand, when we come into the age after 
Ezra we find the regulations of this code coming to 
the front ; and it made its way until the hierarchy be- 
came predominant ; and in the time of our Lord this 
code was the norm of religious practice. 

The caution cannot be too often expressed that a 

* See further Davidson, " Camb. Bib.," p. liii. 

t See further on the date of P, L. O. T.^ p. I35ff. 



i6o THE OLD TESTAMEISTT. 

careful distinction must be made between the date of 
priestly institutions and the date of the completed form 
of the priestly law. The latter only has been the sub- 
ject of our investigation. A system of sacrifices can 
be clearly traced from the beginning of Hebrew his- 
tory. At times, also, it appears that there were clearly 
understood regulations, as, for example, in I. Sam. ii. 
I2ff.; but it is not certain that the system was at this 
time governed by a written laAv, Certain parts of the 
priestly law, even in its written form, may go back to 
an early date ; but this admission does not settle the 
question as to when the present law took its final shape. 



CHAPTER VI 



^be Ibietoincal Booke. 

THE analysis of the books of the Old Testament 
goes much beyond the Hexateuch. It is and 
must be carried to the historical books as well. 
In fact, some of them, notably Judges and Kings, are, 
on their face, compilations for a distinct purpose. It 
is apparent that we shall be unable to understand the 
real facts of the history without analyzing the books 
as far as possible into their original parts, and inter- 
preting the facts accordingly. There are some parts 
of the historical books which are peculiarly illuminated 
by this analysis. The first case to be considered is, 
however, not one involving so much the analysis of a 
book as the comparison of stories which have been 
preserved for the most part in different books. 

The story of the Conquest of Canaan begins in 
Joshua, and ends properly in Samuel. But for our pur- 
pose we need at present to consider only the books 
of Joshua and Judges. There is similar evidence for 
the analysis of Joshua as for the other books already 
considered. But that analysis is not material for the 
purpose in view, which is to consider the Conquest in 
a general review. The book of Joshua falls into two 



162 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

parts, chaps, i.-xii., containing the story of the Con- 
quest, and chaps, xiii.-xxiv., the assignment of the 
land among the tribes, with Joshua's farewell dis- 
courses. The story told in chaps. i.~xii., in the 
main, moves along consistently. We must follow 
briefly the fortunes of Israel as there outlined. 

After many years of the hard discipline of the wilder- 
ness, Joshua is called upon to move forward across the 
Jordan. The tribes to whom land had been assigned 
on the east of the Jordan were summoned to join, the 
forces of Israel. Like a prudent general, Joshua sent 
spies within the enemy's fortifications, so as to know 
accurately their strength. The spies barely escaped 
capture, but were enabled to report that the Canaanites 
were in gr^at alarm at the approach of the Hebrews. 
With this encouraging news, Joshua led his forces 
across the Jordan, Reuben and Gad in the van, and went 
into camp at Gilgal. At this place the rite of circum- 
cision was reinstituted and the Passover celebrated. 

Joshua had realized in advance that Jericho was the 
necessary base of operations in Canaan, and he soon 
turned his attention to that city. At first he appears 
to have tried a siege, but soon made a successful as- 
sault.* 

With this advantageous point gained, Joshua pro- 

* The capture of this city Sayce does not attempt to explain ; he 
says simply that it was " invested and captured in spite of its 
strong walls " (" Early History of the Hebrews," p. 250). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 163 

ceeded to Ai. But the first success had made the 
people too confident. Acting on the advice of the 
spies who had investigated the place, but a small force 
was sent to the attack, and it was easily repulsed 
with considerable loss. Realizing the disastrous effects 
of a defeat at this time, in that it would depress his 
own forces and encourage the enemy, Joshua hastened 
to repair the damage. By a clever ambush the men 
of Ai were drawn out of the city, to a point where the 
divided Israehtes attacked their front and rear. The 
inevitable victory was soon gained. 

The cities of Canaan, like the cities of ancient 
Greece or mediaeval Germany, were independent. 
But as they came to realize the grave danger from the 
invading hosts, there were two confederacies formed, 
one in the north and the other in the south. 

There was one people among the tribes of Canaan 
who preferred diplomacy to war. The Gibeonites re- 
fused to fight, and in fact put themselves under 
Joshua's protection. Joshua learned of the siege of 
Gibeon by the confederates, who were determined to 
punish this tribe for their surrender, and made a forced 
night march to the rescue. The battle was long and 
bloody, but a hailstorm at a timely moment spread 
confusion among the allies, and the whole of Southern 
Palestine was opened to the invaders by the crushing 
of these armies and the slaughter of the five kings. 
The cities of Libnah, Lachish, Hebron, Debir, and 



i64 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Others, fell into Joshua's hands. The story of the cam- 
paign ends with this summary statement : "So Joshua 
smote all the land, the hill country and the south, and 
the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings ; he 
left none remaining. And Joshua smote them from 
Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of 
Goshen, even unto Gibeon. And all these kings and 
their land did Joshua take at one time, because Jahveh, 
the God of Israel, fought for Israel. And Joshua re- 
turned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp at Gil- 
gal" (Josh. x. 4of.). -"^^^ 

The northern alliance which confronted Joshua on his 
second campaign was t'ery formidable. ''The kings 
went out, they and all their host with them, much peo- 
ple, even as the sand that is upon the seashore in mul- 
titude, with horses and chariots very many " CJosh. xi. 4). 
With his usual clever generalship, Joshua succeeded 
in taking this vast army by surprise, and routed them 
completely before they could recover. 

The brief account of this campaign closes with a 
summary of the victories, saying that it extended now 
on the north as far as Hermon. Moreover, it was a 
war of extermination, the inhabitants being invariably 
put to the sword. At the end it is said that "Joshua 
took the whole land, according to all that Jahveh 
spake unto Moses : and Joshua gave it for an inheri- 
tance unto Israel according to the divisions by their 
tribes. And the land had rest from war " (Josh. xi. 23), 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 165 

Thirty-one kings, including the King" of Jerusalem, 
who is not before mentioned, fell a prey to the sword 
of Joshua. 

The enemies remaining were the Philistines on the 
west, and various other tribes far to the north and to the 
south. But all the main part of Canaan was cleared of 
the enemy. As Joshua was now advanced in years, he 
assigned the conquered land to the various tribes, and 
they proceeded to occupy their several allotments. 

The material in the narrative on which the above 
sketch is based is, as has already been said, of varying 
date, some being early and some late. But the early 
narrative has been in large part so edited that the story 
in its general outline is consistent and straightforward. 
It should be added, however, that most of the sweeping 
statements about Joshua's great successes are due to a 
later editor. There are two obvious features of the cam- 
paign as thus described, (i) The whole body of Israel, 
including the trans-Jordanic tribes, fought in one body 
under Joshua, and (2) the sword was not sheathed until 
the conquest of the land afterwards occupied by the 
Hebrews was absolutely complete. In the second part 
of the book, chaps, xiii.-xxiv., in the midst of lists of 
cities, etc., we find frequent notices not easy to recon- 
cile with the situation above described.* 

*Thus in Josh. xv. 14 it is stated that Caleb took Hebron, where- 
as it is stated in Josh. x. 36 that Joshua took it, and in Judges i. 10, 
that Judah took it (cf. i. 20). In Josh. xv. 63 we have a statement 



i66 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

When we turn to the first chapter of the book of 
Judges, we find a complete, though brief, account of 
the Conquest, which no human ingenuity has ever been 
able to reconcile with the above story. It is there 
stated that, after the death of Joshua, the IsraeHtes in- 
quired of Jehovah who of them should first go up 
against the Canaanites, and the reply was, Judah. This 
is evidently a very different situation. Though the time 
is given as after the death of Joshua, the conquest of 
Canaan has not yet been begun; the Israelites are still 
at Jericho (Judges i. i6). Instead of a campaign of united 
Israel, Judah is the first tribe to attempt to get a foot- 
hold in Canaan. Simeon was induced to go with 
Judah, and it is stated that in the course of the cam- 
that the children of Judah could not drive the Jebusites from Jeru- 
salem (cf. Judges i. 2i) ; but Jerusalem was one of the places said to 
have been subdued by Joshua (Josh, x. iff., xii. lo). We read 
that the Ephraimites did not drive the Canaanites out of Gezer, but 
that they remain " to this day," having been reduced to taskwork 
(Josh. xvi. lo; cf. Judges i. 29) ; but we are told thatHoram, King 
of Gezer, came to the help of Lachish, " and Joshua smote him and 
his people until he had left him none remaining" (Josh. x. 33). 
We learn that the Manassites could not drive the inhabitants from 
the towns of Bethshean, Ibleam and Dor, but in later years reduced 
them to servitude (Josh. xvii. 11-13) ; while, according to Josh. xii. 
23, Dor had been conquered by Joshua. 

It will appear from an examination of these passages that many 
of the scattered statements in the second part of Joshua are identi- 
cal with those in Judges i. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 167 

paign these tribes took Jerusalem, Hebron and Debir, 
cities which were said to have been taken under Joshua. 
But in verse 21 we are told that *' the Benjamites could 
not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem : but the 
Jebusites dwelt with the Benjamites in Jerusalem, unto 
this day." The story goes on to relate the conquest 
of Bethel by the tribe of Joseph ; but most of the other 
tribes are said to have been too weak to take towns. 
They secured a foothold in the retreats in the moun- 
tains, from which they gradually advanced against the 
Canaanites, though We are expressly told that the 
original inhabitants were not exterminated, but reduced 
to servitude. 

It appears clearly, therefore, that there are two sepa- 
rate accounts of the conquest of Canaan. According 
to one (Josh. i.-Xii.) Joshua led the combined forces to 
victory after victory until the possession was made 
complete by the capture of the important cities, and 
the extermination of the inhabitants. According to 
the other (fragments in Josh, xiii.ff., and Judges i.), the 
conquest was effected by the various tribes operating 
for the most part independently ; the struggle lasted a 
long time, and in the end the Canaanites were not ex- 
terminated, but reduced to servitude. 

The true history of the conquest can be written only 
by a diligent study of these two sources. That in 
Judges is the earlier, but the other, though later, must 
always be considered. An important characteristic of 



i68 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

the later source is the disregard of perspective. Look- 
ing back through a long period of time, events which 
covered several generations are all placed in the age 
of Joshua. It is manifest that some of the events de- 
scribed in Judges i. took place before the death of 
Joshua. In the Book of Joshua, as we have seen, many 
of these events are connected with the great leader's 
career. 

But if Joshua did not lead the forces of Israel through 
a long, almost unbroken series of victories,* his part in 
the conquest was by no means small. He was a great 
general, making the most of the opportunity he had. 
Doubtless the tribes moved to their tasks under his di- 
rection, and the great tribe of Ephraim, perhaps at 
times with others associated with it, was led by him in 
the great struggle for a central position in the land. 

Another passage in the early history of Israel which 
is obscure and difficult until the sources are subjected 
to a critical analysis, is the account of Saul's accession 
to the throne of Israel. As the narrative now stands, 
there are passages not easily brought into harmony. 
In one case we read that the people ask for a king. 



* " Joshua was not the conqueror of Canaan in any exact sense 
of the term. ... In Canaan itself the amount of territory won 
by Joshua was practically confined to the passage over the Jordan 
and the mountainous region of the centre. Few of the Canaan- 
itish cities were captured by him " (Sayce, " Early Hist.," p. 248). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 169 

much to the displeasure both of Samuel and of Jehovah 
(I. Sam. viii. 4ff.) ; in another, that Jehovah was gra- 
ciously moved to raise up a king to deliver His people 
from the Philistines, because He had heard their cry of 
distress. According to one account, Samuel tried to 
dissuade the people from their purpose, while in the 
other he enters heartily into the divine purpose, and 
aids Saul to secure the sovereignty over the people. 
Even after Samuel had anointed Saul by divine com- 
mandment (x. i), he accused the people of rejecting 
God by their request for a king (xii. 12). In one case 
Jehovah points out Saul to Samuel privately as the 
destined king (ix. 16); in the other case he was selected 
by lot in a great assembly at Mizpah (x. 2off.). After 
Saul had been thus pubHcly elevated to the throne, 
and had retired with the army (x. 26), we find him 
quietly plowing in the field (xi. 5). 

If now there had been a king on the throne of Israel 
the men of Jabesh-Gilead would naturally have gone 
directly to him, instead of sending through all the 
borders of Israel for such succor as they could find. 
Even when the message telling of the straits of their 
kinsmen was known in Saul's city, no one went to him; 
he learned of the situation by inquiry. Saul does not 
then send out orders as an accredited king, but sends 
a threat as an individual. 

We read further in Samuel's address to the people 
that an invasion of Nahash the king of Ammon was 



I70 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

tbe occasion of the people's demand for a king (xii. 12), 
whereas the king in another place is said to have been 
publicl}^ proclaimed before this invasion (x. I7ff.). A.s 
the story stands, moreover, Saul was first anointed 
privately, then chosen by lot at Mizpah and declared 
to be the king chosen of Jehovah, and then again at 
Gilgal " they made Saul king before Jahveh, with sacri- 
fices and great rejoicings " (xi. I4f.). 

It must be evident from these considerations that 
this event, as it now stands, is by no means free from 
serious difficulties. The faculties of the harmonist have 
been tried at this passage repeatedly, but not with a 
success that has won confidence. The discovery that 
there are here two parallel accounts, enables us at all 
events to understand the course of events. The older 
account is found in ix. i-x. 16 ; xi. i-ii, 14, 15 ; the 
later version is in viii., x. 17-27, xii. These are each 
preserved with considerable completeness, as will read- 
ily be seen by any one who will take the trouble to 
read the two groups of passages separately. The old- 
est story of the establishment of the monarchy may 
be briefly told. 

Israel had long been under the heel of the dreaded 
Philistines. As in the tim.e of the Judges, so now their 
distressful cry reached the ears of Jehovah. Instead of 
raising up now, as in the past, a temporary deliverer, 
Jehovah reveals to His prophet His purpose to raise 
up a permanent king for His suffering people. In the 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 171 

giant Benjamite, who comes to ask the seer about the 
strayed asses, Samuel perceives the one whom Jehovah 
had chosen. After showing Saul high honor at a pub- 
lic sacrifice, Samuel detains him for the night at Ramah, 
doubtless to lay before him the matters of which his 
heart was full. In the morning he anointed Saul, and 
declared him to be the king of Israel, giving him signs 
to prove that his choice was of God's will, and parting 
from him with the injunction to do as occasion served 
him — a veiled statement meaning that Saul was to 
seize an opportunity to get possession of the throne. 

A suitable occasion for the showing of his hand soon 
arose. As he came from the field one evening he 
heard a wail in his city. Upon inquiry, he learned that 
messengers had arrived imploring aid for Jabesh-Gil- 
ead, a city across the Jordan, whose people had agreed 
to surrender to Nahash, and allow him to put out their 
right eyes, unless they found succor within seven days. 
When he heard of the plight of his kinsmen " the Spirit 
of God came mightily upon Saul, and his anger was 
kindled greatly." He sent a message to all the Israel- 
ites threatening them with punishment unless they ral- 
lied to the rescue. Three hundred and thirty thousand 
men quickly responded to his call. This force marched 
to Jabesh in three divisions, and at dawn attacked the 
besieging Ammonites on all sides. The besiegers 
were taken completely by surprise, and were quickly 
put to rout, 



172 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Saul had won the right to be the head of the nation, 
Samuel, who had apparently accompanied the host, 
seizes the favorable opportunity, and musters the peo- 
ple at the old centre at Gilgal, where Saul is crowned 
as the king of Israel. 

This story is complete and consistent. The first 
king of Israel could scarcely have secured the throne 
except by such an exhibition of leadership. The 
judges of an earlier age won the right to temporary 
rule by their prowess in war. After Gideon had ex- 
pelled the MIdianites the crown was offered to him. 
David himself was finally received as the king of the 
North because he had been the real deliverer from 
Philistine oppression (II. Sam. v. 2). Saul won the 
crovv^n by showing his ability to be the head of the 
people. 

This earlier story is probably the more correct ver- 
sion, though the other may preserve some true details. 
The analysis is based very largely upon the clear indica- 
tions of a double narrative ; but the differences of style 
are very marked, and the separation of the composite 
structure very easy. It is apparent that while the two 
versions differ in various details of more or less impor- 
tance, they agree in all that can be regarded as funda- 
mental. In both the prophet Samuel selects the king ; 
Saul is the divine choice ; he is gladly accepted by the 
people because of his great power as a leader in war.* 

* In the earlier version this is shown by his relief of Jabesh ; in 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 173 

Another case of a similar kind is found also in I. Sam- 
uel, the story of David and GoUath. It must be apparent 
to any one who reads this story that as it now stands 
it presents difficulties of a most perplexing kind. Thus 
when Samuel goes down to anoint a son of Jesse as 
king to take the place of the rejected Saul, David is 
said to be the youngest son, and so was left in charge 
of the sheep, while his older and more stalwart broth- 
ers went to Samuel's sacrifice. Further it is said that 
"he was ruddy, and, withal, of a beautiful countenance, 
and goodly to look upon" (I. Sam. xvi. iif.). David 
had nothing in his outward appearance to commend 
him as a king. Samuel expected to find the right one 
among the older sons, but he was admonished that the 
decision was not to be based upon external appear- 
ances, or the height of the stature, " for man looks 
on the outward appearance, but Jahveh looks on the 
heart" (xvi. 7). 

Directly afterward we read that Saul's counsellors 
advise the king to secure a cunning player on the harp 
as a cure for the king's mental aberration, and they 
recommend David as " cunning in playing, and a 
mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and prudent 
in speech, and a comely person" (xvi. 18). David was 
taken to Saul's court, and his military ability seems soon 
to have overshadowed everything else, and he was by 

the later he is said to be " higher than any of the people from his 
shoulders and upward" (x. 23). 



174 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

arrangement with Jesse permanently attached to Saul's 
court in the high position of royal armor-bearer. 

We next hear of David as a shepherd going to and 
fro to feed his father's flock at Bethlehem (xvii. 15). 
He is sent by his father to carry supplies to his three 
brothers ^ who were in Saul's army. His oldest 
brother reproves him because he has left the sheep 
and come down, with natural boyish curiosity, to 
see a battle. When David proposed to do battle 
with Goliath, Saul discourages him: "Thou art but 
a youth." David admits this, but says that during 
his shepherd life he has rescued sheep from lions and 
bears. Saul puts his armor upon David ; but a shep- 
herd lad knows nothing about the use of armor, and 
David realizes that it will be only an impediment. As 
a matter of fact he goes out against the mighty Philis- 
tine equipped only with his shepherd's staff and his 
sling. The giant disdained him because "he was only 

* The original form of this narrative only knows of four sons of 
Jesse. The three eldest are with Saul, and David, the youngest, is 
the only one left (xvii, 14); for when he goes to the scene of battle 
he leaves the flocks with a keeper (xvii. 20). So his brother asks in 
surprise, " With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilder- 
ness ? " (xvii. 28)— a question without occasion, if there were yet 
four brothers at home. The statement, " and he had eight sons " 
(xvii. 12), is a gloss, based on xvi. 10; it is out of place where it 
stands, besides being in disagreement with the narrative following; 
50 too is verse 15. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 175 

a youth, and ruddy, and, withal, of a fair countenance" 
(xvii. 42; cf. xvi. 12). After the battle, Saul took 
David and would let him go no more to his own home, 
"and Saul set him over the men of war " (xviii. 2, 5). 
David's fame as a soldier soon became so great that he 
was praised more than Saul, and so the demented 
king's jealousy was aroused. 

It is evident that we have two Davids in this narra- 
tive. One is the ruddy shepherd lad, ignorant of war 
and warlike implements, although with a brave heart 
and a deep religious spirit. In the other, David is a 
man of war and a man of proved valor. It is true that 
the ruddy shepherd lad might become a man of war ; 
but this is not the order of the narrative. After he 
wins a position at Saul's court as a man of war, he 
again is represented over and over again as the youth. 
Moreover, when called to the court of Saul he had 
already achieved a wide reputation as a man of war; 
for his fame was known among the men of the North, 
though he belonged to a poor family in an obscure vil- 
lage of Judah. 

We notice another serious stumbling block in the 
story. Though David had been attached to Saul's 
court as minstrel and armor-bearer, later, when he 
came into the presence of the king, it appears that they 
are entire strangers to each other (xvii. 33f). Saul 
afterwards inquired of Abner whose son the youth was, 
andAbner did not know, Abner was bidden to in- 



176 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

quire, but does not appear to have succeeded, as the 
king only learns who David was by asking him upon 
his return from his victorious combat (xvii. 55ff.)- ^^^^ 
too easy harmonistic devices will not clear up this 
difficulty. Thus one may say that Saul did not recog- 
nize David because of his mental malady. But Abner, 
whose head was all right, did not know David either. 
Besides this is only one of several discrepancies. 

The story contains abundant other evidence of its 
composite character. In xvii. I2ff. we have an intro- 
duction to Jesse and his family which is entirely super- 
fluous after chapter xvi. This introduction shows that 
originally this narrative at least did not follow chapter 
xvi. ; for Jesse and his sons are here assumed to be entire- 
ly unknown. The compiler, or some subsequent scribe, 
realized that there was lack of harmony between the 
statement that David was attached to Saul's court, 
and that he was a shepherd lad in Bethlehem, and 
adds a parenthetic note (verse 15) to explain the dif- 
ficulty. But it does not after all clear up the situation. 
Moreover, in xvii. 21, the two armies are about to 
engage in a general conflict ; while in xvii. 4, the 
Philistines proposed to settle the matter by single 
combat, a method much in vogue among ancient peo- 
ples. 

The Greek version throws welcome light upon this 
matter, light which is peculiarly welcome to those who 
are distrustful of internal evidence. The best MSS, of 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 177 

the Septuagint lack two large sections of this story, 
xvii. 12-31, 41, 50; xvii. 55-xviii. 5. 

This removes the chief redundancies and discrepan- 
cies. The joining- of verse 32 with verse 11 makes a 
clear connection. GoHath challenges Israel to settle 
the war by single combat, and David, who is with the 
army as an attache of Saul's court, promptly accepts 
the challenge. The questions about David's identity 
are removed also. But this text does not remove the 
chief difficulty; for the two Davids remain. 

The question now demands consideration how we 
are to explain the shorter recension of the LXX. 
Did the Greek translators omit these passages because 
they saw the hopeless discrepancies } or did the 
Hebrew text from which they translated lack these 
passages ? The translators of the Greek version have 
left no statement about the principles which guided 
them, and yet we are not left altogether without wit- 
ness for the answer to this question. If on critical 
grounds the translators attempted by the simple de- 
vice of omission to harmonize conflicting stories, it 
would be strange that they had done this only in one 
case. As we have already seen, there are other cases 
to which the pruning knife might have been applied as 
well as here ; but this is the only case of the kind found 
in the Old Testament. It is clear, therefore, that the 
Hebrew text used by these translators also lacked the 
passage. There is abundant evidence that the Hebrew 



178 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Bible from which the Greek version was made differed 
in many important respects from that which the Jews 
finally adopted as the standard. In this case the Jews 
adopted the larger recension. It is entirely possible 
that additions were inserted in this narrative after the 
Greek version was made. It may be well to remem- 
ber in this connection that the Greek version was that 
used by our Lord and His Apostles. 

But let us now see what light critical analysis has to 
throw on this passage. The Jews themselves appear 
to have had two versions of the story of David's intro- 
duction to Saul. In one he came as a minstrel, and 
won his way rapidly to higher rank ; in the other he 
came by chance into the army at a lucky moment, and 
won a place in Saul's court by his slaughter of the 
Philistine giant. 

Now we must not lose sight of the fact that the 
Hebrew records are not in accord, even in crediting 
David with the victory over Goliath. The following pas- 
sages furnish material which may not be disregarded: 

I. Sam. XVII. 4, 7. II. Sam. xxi. 19^. I. Chron. xx. 5^. 
And there came out And Elhanan the And Elhanan the 
a champion from the son of Jaare-oregim son of Jair slew- 
camp of the Philis- the Bethlehemite Lahmi, the brother 
tines, named Goliath, slew Goliath the of Goliath the Git- 
of Gath, . . . and Gittite, the staff of tite, the staff of 
the sta«ff of his spear whose spear was like whose spear was 
was like a weaver's a weaver's beam. like a weaver's 
beam. beam. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 179 

There is good reason for identifying the Goliaths in 
the first two passages. The second story is told in an 
appendix to the history of David which consists of 
events scattered all through his reign. In both cases, 
the name is the same, the city is the same, and the de- 
scription of the spear is the same. The passage In 
Chronicles looks very much like a harmonistic device. 
A comparison of the two passages in Hebrew shows 
that they are more nearly alike than appears in Eng- 
lish.- 

The Books of Samuel therefore leave the matter in 
uncertainty whether David or Elhanan slew Goliath, 
and between these two statements it is not easy to 
choose. The records in II. Sam. xxi.-xxiii. seem to 
be taken from old archives, while I. Sam. xvii. does not 
show the marks of an early record. On the other hand, 
there are references to David's victory over Goliath in 
other parts of I. Samuel (xlx. 5; xxi. 9). 

* The Hebrew reads as follows (the upper line is from II. Sam.): 

in^jn fyi ^n:n n^i5j ^nx ^^rh t\^ -i^r p \^rh^ i^i 

The first D"'JnN* is an error of the text creeping in from the 
end. Chronicles contains the correct name of Elhanan's father, 
Jair; the consonants are the same, a single letter being trans- 
posed. Chronicles has made n?^ out of n^n and nx out of nx. 
Chronicles may have had some justification for its error in an ob- 
scure text. 



i8o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

The oldest part of this narrative is xvi. 14-23, 
David's attachment to Saul as minstrel and armor- 
bearer. The sequel to this narrative is found in xviii. 
6ff. The connection is obscured in the Hebrew unless we 
read in xviii. 6, as Revised Version (margin), " When 
David came from the slaughter of the Philistines." But 
the LXX. probably has the true text of this verse, "And 
the singing wom.en came out to meet David from all the 
cities of Israel." Between these two parts there must 
originally have been a section describing David's cam- 
paign against the Philistines, unless, indeed, xviii. 5 
contains the necessary information, xviii. 5ff. being 
the direct continuation of xvi. 14-23. 

The account of Samuel's anointing David belongs to 
the later stratum of the books. Though David is said 
to have been anointed as king in the presence of his 
father and brothers, there is no reference to this in the 
subsequent history. Eliab would scarcely have chided 
David as he did if David had been king. David refuses 
to stretch forth his hand against Jehovah's anointed 
(I. Sam. xxiv. 6) ; would he have felt thus if he had 
been anointed to succeed Saul ? David in fact recog- 
nizes Saul's right as king everywhere, and puts to death 
the lying messenger who brought the tidings of 
slaughter, because he had stretched forth his hand 
against Jehovah's anointed (II. Sam. i. 14). 

The place of xvii. i-xviii. 5 (or 4) is not so easy to fix. 
I have stated grounds above for doubting that this was 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. i8r 

originally a unit, as the combat in xvii. i-ii is not the 
same as that inverse 19 ff.,^ though it finds its continu- 
ation in verse 32ff. The settlement of the place of this 
narrative depends upon our conclusion as to whether 
David or Elhanan was the champion who slew Goliath. 
It is not easy to explain either story as a historical 
error. We may, perhaps, rest the case with Kent's 
conclusion : " It is by no means impossible that in 
some one of the many forays of the Philistines into Ju- 
dah, the youthful David slew the champion of the Philis- 
tines. The memory of the act was preserved among 
David's kinsmen, the Judasans, until at last it found a 
place in the prophetic history which is our great source 
for the period. Certainly some such deed or deeds he 
performed before he gained the reputation of being ' a 
mighty man of valor,' which he bore when introduced 
to Saul's court. This subsequent record confirms this 
conclusion. "t 

The books of Samuel show their composite character 
in many other places. There is one instance of a some- 
what different character, in which we seem to have two 
different versions of the same story, though the two 
accounts are separated in our present books. If one 
reads chaps, xxiv. and xxvi. of I. Samuel, he is struck 

*Note that verse 19 contains a statement that is entirely super- 
fluous after verse 2; in fact is almost a verbal repetition of it. Verse 
24 is also a repetition of verse 11. 

t " A History of the Hebrew People," L, 105. 



l82 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

with the remarkable similarity of the two stories. At 
the same time, the variations are so numerous that it 
may seem difficult to decide whether they are two ac- 
counts of the same event, or two independent occur- 
rences. The question can only be decided by taking 
into consideration, not only the several points of agree- 
ment and disagreement, but also the character of these 
points. 

The argument or plot of the event described in chap. 
xxiv. may be thus stated : Saul is informed of David's hid- 
ing place in the wilderness of Judah ; he gathers three 
thousand picked men and goes to seek David and his 
band. David surprises Saul, and has the opportunity 
to kill him, and is urged to permit his men to take 
Saul's hfe ; but he refuses on the ground that he dare 
not lift his hand against Jehovah's anointed, and that 
Jehovah would accomplish Saul's downfall. He takes 
some of Saul's belongings as evidence that he had 
spared the king's life when it was in his power, and 
afterwards, from a safe point, calls to Saul, exhibits the 
proof of his mercy, appeals to Saul against the cal- 
umnies which have aroused the king's hostility, pro- 
fesses the unworthiness of the object of the king's pur- 
suit, he being but a flea. To this Saul repHed : " Is this 
thy voice, my son David?" (xxiv. i6 ; cf. xxvi. 17) 
and professed his regret at his own folly and his 
appreciation of David's magnanimity ; he further ex- 
pressed his conviction of David's future greatness, 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 



183 



and departed homeward with his forces. David and 
his men returned to their camp in the hold. 

It appears now that this framework of the one 
story is equally good for the other. Every detail 
stated above is equally found in the other story in 
chap. xxvi. It must be acknowledged, also, that this 
outline contains all the essential points in the nar- 
rative. The important details in which the narratives 
are not in agreement can be best shown by reverting 
again to the method of parallel columns. 



Chap. xxiv. 

David, Saul was told, was in 
the wilderness of Engedi.* Saul 
went into a cave, in the recesses 
of which David and his men 
were hidden ; thus David dis- 
covered that Saul was in pursuit. 

David came forward, and, with- 
out Saul's knowledge, cut off the 
skirt of his robe. 

David followed Saul out of the 
cave and cried out to him, show- 
ing him the skirt of his robe. 

David took an oath not to cut 
off Saul's seed after him. 



Chap. xxvi. 

The Ziphites told Saul that 
David was in the hill of Hachi- 
lah, before the desert. David 
sent spies from the wilderness, 
and learned that Saul had come 
in pursuit of him. 

David and Abishai went 
down to the camp of Saul at 
night; the latter, by David's 
direction, takes Saul's spear and 
the cruse of water, and they re- 
turn to their camp unobserved, 
because Jehovah had sent a deep 
sleep upon Saul and his host. 
David goes to the top of a moun- 
tain not far from Saul's camp 



* Engedi and Hachilah are near each other in the wilderness 
along the western coast of the Dead Sea. 



i84 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

and calls to Abner, reproaching him for his failure properly to 
guard his master, and showing the spear and water cruse. Saul 
recognizes David's voice and bids him return, assuring him that he 
will do him no harm. 

Besides the difTerences indicated in this bare outline, 
there is the great difference of phraseology, which can 
only be fully appreciated by reading the chapters 
throughout. 

In favor of the view that these are but different ver- 
sions of the same event, there is this further consider- 
ation. The second story makes no reference whatever 
to the first. This silence would be very singular if 
David had twice had Saul's life within his power. At 
the beginning we should confidently have looked for 
some reference to a similar occurrence which had 
happened previously. David would scarcely have 
lost such a forceful argument in his effort to show 
his good intentions toward the king. And at the 
close of the story some reference to the former event 
would greatly have strengthened the position of 
David. 

But it may be asked how it is possible to explain the 
numerous variations in the two stories if they are du- 
plicates. The answer is found in a fact which every 
observant person knows. There is a tendency for 
stories which are handed from person to person to vary 
greatly in local coloring and other details. Before the 
David stories were reduced to writing, they may have 



THE MODERN POmT OF VIEW, 185 

assumed such divergent forms that in a case like this 
the compiler was led to incorporate both versions. 

But little need be said as to the priority of one or the 
other version. Without stating any reason, Driver holds 
that chap. xxvi. contains *Hhe more original version."'^ 
But before there can be any final pronouncement on 
this question, further attention needs to be given to the 
possible relation of chap, xxiii. I9ff. to these two 
stories. The details of this latter passage are singu- 
larly like those of chap. xxvi. The same Ziphites carry 
information to Saul at Gibeah about David's hiding 
place, and the same place is mentioned, namely, Hach- 
ilah. In this case Saul is drawn away from his hostile 
purpose by news of a Philistine invasion. This story 
fits in much better with. chap. xxiv. than with chap, 
xxvi. After the Phihstine invasion Saul learned 
that David had sought a new asylum, and went in pur- 
suit. It may be that many of the details of chap. 
xxvi. are the more correct. But, however this may be, 
the duplicate version gives us peculiar assurance as to 
the main facts which are contained in the argument 
above. 

These specimens are sufficient to show how the stu- 
dent who attempts a thorough study of Hebrew his- 
tory is dependent upon the results of the higher criti- 
cism. This science furnishes him with the basis for all 

* '' Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel," p. 158. 



1 86 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

his work. He may not be an expert critic himself, but 
he cannot afford to disregard the results achieved by the 
labors of other competent scholars in this field. The 
principles of historical criticism, which have done so 
much to make the history of other nations intelligible, 
must be appHed also to the history of Israel. 



CHAPTER VII. 



Biblical Ibietor?. 

BEFORE we can fully comprehend the facts of 
Hebrew history there is another important 
consideration which demands our attention. 
In order properly to understand any historical writ- 
ing it is necessary to know the writer's point of view. 
A history which merely narrated facts would be intol- 
erably dry. Many school histories have been a weari- 
ness to the flesh of school children because they con- 
sisted of but the dry bones of history, dates, and other 
like matter. The demand made of the modern histor- 
ian is that he shall not only state the facts, but also 
that he shall place them in their proper relations. In 
other words, philosophy must be introduced into his- 
torical study. The essential thing is not merely the 
facts, but the meaning of the facts. Indeed, the ac- 
compHshed historian seeks rather to conceal his facts 
in the interest of his philosophy. Even the daily 
newspaper responds in a measure to this demand. The 
news columns not only state the facts, but attempt to 
interpret their significance. The editorial columns are 
simply philosophical adjuncts to give a more intelligent 



i88 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

and sober interpretation of the facts of the news col- 
umns. 

The amount of interpretation which enters into a 
historical waiting varies greatly, according to circum- 
stances. In some cases we find, just enough interpre- 
tation to make the facts intelligible ; in others, inter- 
pretation is so predominant that facts are suppressed, 
or sometimes even invented, in the interest of theories. 
A judicial temperament is, therefore, an essential ele- 
ment for the historian. Above all, he must be free 
from partisan bias, so as to include all the facts, before 
he attempts to make deductions from them. 

The truth is, however, that comparatively few his- 
torians have this perfect judicial temperament. Inev- 
itably the personal equation enters in ; and allowance 
has to be made for this by the careful reader. The 
more this personal equation appears, the less trust- 
worthy the result as a source of historical facts. Yet 
one might easily go too far in discrediting partisan 
history. In courts of law it is found that the best way 
to get at the actual facts is to give both prosecution 
and defence the widest liberty to present their case 
from their own widely divergent assumptions. 

A partisan history is sometimes the best place to 
learn the real truth; provided, of course, one is able to 
read with sufificient discernment. There are many peo- 
ple in the North who have no correct conception of 
the true motive of the South in the great Civil War, 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 189 

because they have never read what has been written 
from the Southern point of view, and have not dis- 
cerned the bias in the books they have read. It is 
profitable for the BibHcal student to read Prof. Green's 
books as well as Prof. Cheyne's. We should have 
both sides of a case before a final conclusion is at- 
tempted. One who has read only one history of any 
period is but poorly furnished ; for he may have only a 
one-sided presentation. Often, however, we may have 
enough independent knowledge to enable us to estimate 
the true facts from a single interpretative presenta- 
tion. 

This interpretative character of history has come into 
great prominence in modern times, as a sound judicial 
spirit has become more common ; but this character is 
found in ancient history as well as in modern. The 
question which concerns us now is whether this char- 
acteristic is found in Biblical history, and how far it 
must be considered by the student of the Bible. There 
may be difference of opinion as to its extent, but there 
can be none as to its existence. In fact, there are 
many perplexing problems which virtually solve them- 
selves by the recognition of this fact. Some of these 
will be considered in the present chapter. 

The extent to which interpretation has entered into 
the Biblical history varies greatly in different parts. In 
some cases it is very slight ; in others it is so predom- 
inant that it is difficult to determine what the true facts 



igo THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

are. In some cases the interpretation is found in the 
introductory statements; in others it is part of the warp 
and woof of the narrative. Modern criticism has done 
nothing which is more helpful to a reasonable faith 
than the making clear the distinction between facts 
and theories in Biblical history. 

The Book of Judges shows us plainly the interpreta- 
tive character of Biblical history. That book consists, 
in the main, of a collection of stories of the heroes of 
the age between the death of Joshua and the rise of 
the monarchy. But the stories are told with a religious 
purpose. That purpose is shown in the general intro- 
duction in chap, ii., as well as in the special introduc- 
tions to the various stories. In the former we read 
thus : '' The Israelites did that which was evil in the 
sight of Jahveh, and served the Baalim: and they 
abandoned Jahveh, the God of their fathers; . . . and 
they provoked Jahveh to anger; . . . and the anger 
of Jahveh was kindled against Israel, and he gave them 
into the hand of spoilers, and they spoiled them; and 
he sold them into the hands of their enemies round 
about, so that they were no longer able to stand be- 
fore their enemies; . . . and they were sore dis- 
tressed. . . . And Jahveh raised up judges and 
they rescued them from the hand of their spoilers. 
. . . And when Jahveh raised them up judges, then 
Jahveh was with the judge, and rescued them from 
the hands of their enemies all the days of the judge; 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 191 

for Jahveh repented because of their groaning by rea- 
son of their oppressors and their troublers. But it came 
to pass when the judge was dead, that they turned 
back and dealt more corruptly than their fathers. 
. . . And the anger of Jahveh was kindled against 
Israel" (ii. I iff.). 

One specimen of the special introductions to the sev- 
eral narratives will suffice for all: " The Israelites again 
did that which was evil in the sight of Jahveh ; and 
Jahveh strengthened Eglon, the king of Moab, against 
Israel. . . . And he went and smote Israel. 

. . And the Israelites served Eglon king of Moab 
eighteen years. And the Israehtes cried unto Jahveh, 
and Jahveh raised them up a deliverer, Ehud, the son 
of Gera. . . . And Moab was subdued that day 
under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest eighty 
years " (iii. 12-15, 30)- 

These statements, which are due to the compiler, 
show the purpose of the book, and they reveal its in- 
terpretative character. The bare facts are that in the 
early days, when the tribes were struggling to main- 
tain themselves in their newly conquered land, their 
possession was disputed at different times by the va- 
rious nations about them."^ These nations invaded the 
land while the tribes were disorganized, while they 
were without tribal federation or strong leaders, and 

*0n the character of the age of the Judges, see a chapter by the 
writer in " The Bible as Literature." T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1896. 



192 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

held the tribes in oppressive subjugation until a hero 
arose who led the people of Israel in successful revolt. 

But these facts seemed to the historian to require ex- 
planation. God had promised the peaceful possession 
of the land and the promise did not seem to be fulfilled. 
Gideon doubtless voices a common sentiment when he 
said to the angel of Jehovah : " If Jahveh be with us, 
why, then, has all this befallen us? and where be all his 
wondrous works which our fathers told us of? " (vi. 
13).* The compiler of the book connects every period 
of oppression with a period of apostasy on the part of 
Israel. As soon as they come to Jehovah with peni- 
tent prayers, He raises up one to succor them. The 
period of Israel's fideUty is coterminous with the life 
of the divinely sent hero. 

It is implied, for example, in the compiler's state- 
ment t that Israel served Jehovah all the days of Gid- 
eon, that is, for forty years; whereas we are told dis- 
tinctly that Gideon, at the end of his campaign, made 
an ephod of the spoil, after which all Israel went a 
whoring (viii. 27). It is sufficiently evident now that the 

*It is worthy of note that the angel does not explain the fact 
which troubled Gideon as the compiler does. His reply means that 
God will even now show a continuation of His mighty works. He 
does not attribute Israel's plight to their sins. 

t " And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the Is- 
raelites turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made 
Baal-berith their God " (viii. 33). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 193 

stories of the heroes are one thing, and the interpreta- 
tion which is placed upon this age is quite another 
thing. The interpretation may be right. The theolog- 
ical explanation of the defeats and victories of this age, 
for such it is, may be true; it certainly does contain el- 
ements of profound truth; but the facts of the history 
do not stand or fall with the correctness of the com- 
piler's point of view. So it would be possible that the 
theology might be correct, even though the supposed 
facts were the work of the imagination. The doctrine 
in our Lord's parables does not depend upon facts in 
the narrative. The facts are freely invented to serve 
as a vehicle for the great truths conveyed. 

Moreover, the question of the correctness of the 
facts and of the interpretation belong to different 
spheres of science. The determination of the former 
belongs to historical criticism, that of the latter to 
dogmatics. If the critic feels that he has a grievance 
against the theologian because he judges his results 
from the point of view of his theological opinions, the 
theologian in turn may well feel a grievance against 
the critic because he has attempted to solve theologi- 
cal problems with a purely critical apparatus. The 
question whether the narratives in the Book of Judges 
are historical or not must be answered by the expert 
in historical criticism; but the question whether the in- 
terpretatlon is sound or not rests with the theologian, 
Historical criticism has scrutinized and analyzed these 



194 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

narratives most searchingly, and the verdict is that the 
matter is historical. The question as to the interpre- 
tation may well be left for the theologian to determine. 

It may be stated here, however, that the theology 
by which the compiler explains the varying fortunes of 
Israel is found also in many other parts of the Old 
Testament, and belongs to the very difficult subject of 
" Special Providence." All that is contended for here 
is that a distinction must be drawn between the histori- 
cal facts and the writer's interpretation of facts, as both 
are found in Old Testament history, and that they do 
not stand or fall together. It would not be strange if an 
ancient Hebrew author did not say the last word about 
a deep subject of theology, although he has laid his hand 
on a great truth; but his failure to do that would not 
vitiate the historic facts which he uses to illustrate his 
theory. 

A passage which has caused the greatest perplexity 
to many devout readers is that describing the execu- 
tion by command of David of seven descendants of the 
house of Saul. The story briefly is as follows : The 
land of Israel was visited by a severe famine, which 
lasted for three years. David inquired of Jehovah the 
cause of the trouble, and was told that it was a 
punishment because Saul had put Gibeonites to death 
in contravention of the oath of Joshua."^ David sum- 

* Or perhaps of the people ; see Josh. ix. 15, 18 ; II. Sam. xxi. 
2, and p. lo/ff. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 



195 



moned the Gibeonites and asked what atonement 
would satisfy them so that they would *' bless the in- 
heritance of Jehovah." They refused any terms ex- 
cept blood for blood. Seven '* sons of Saul " were 
handed over to the Gibeonites, *' and they hanged 
them in the mountain before Jahveh." Rizpah, Saul's 
concubine, whose two sons were among those exe- 
cuted, stood guard over the bodies all the long time 
they were hanging exposed to birds and beasts of prey. 
David was so moved by her devotion that he had the 
bones of those who had been hung buried along with 
the bones of Saul and Jonathan."^ Then we read that 
" after that God was entreated for the land " (II. Sam. 
xxi. 1-14)- 

It appears from another statement in the passage that 
the famine was broken by the fall of rain at the usual 
time in the autumn. The narrative is by no means 

* The LXX. has several readings which are different from the 
Hebrew. To verse 11 it adds this very obscure statement: "And 
they loosed them, and Dan the son of Joa seized them from the 
descendants of the giants." The Hebrew does not say that the 
bones of those who were hung were buried with the bones of Saul 
and Jonathan, but the LXX. does. The Hebrew and the best 
MS. of the LXX. say that the men of Jabesh-Gilead had stolen 
the bones of Saul and Jonathan (Cod. Alex, says instead that they 
buried Xh^m). But in L Sam. xxxi. 12 we read that the Jabesh- 
Gileadites valiantly recovered the bodies of Saul and his sons from 
Bethshan to stop the shame of exposure, and burnt them in Jabesh, 
afterwards burying their bones. 



196 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

clear of textual difficulties, as has been shown in the 
critical note. But the meaning of the story as it now 
stands is clear. God punished Israel because Saul had 
slain the Gibeonites. He was appeased by the execu- 
tion of Saul's sons, and sent the rain which ended the 
famine. 

It is evident that there is a good deal of interpreta- 
tion in this passage. The facts are easily determina- 
ble. There is no doubt that there was a famine ; that 
Saul had put some Gibeonites to death ; that David 
permitted the execution of Saul's sons ; that Rizpah 
kept her faithful watch; and that rain finally came to 
the rehef of the famished land. But whether the his- 
torian has traced correctly the relation of cause and 
effect in this matter may be open to very grave doubt. 
That Saul's execution of unoffending Gibeonites was a 
sin in the eyes of God, is beyond question. But that 
God sent a famine to the people who had been no party 
to the wrong as an express punishment for this sin, and 
still more that He should be appeased by the execu- 
tion of the innocent descendants of the perpetrator of 
the wrong, is not easily reconcilable with the Christian 
conception of the character of God. It should be noted 
that according to the narrative the rain which re- 
lieved the famine came six months after the execution, 
and that at the usual wet season of the autumn. 

It was natural, however, that the Jews should have 
interpreted the events as they did. The act of Saul in 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 197 

putting to death those who were protected by the oath 
of the people was regarded as peculiarly heinous. 
The Jews looked upon every misfortune as the special 
punishment of God for some specific sin. The famine 
year after year was a fact which could be explained 
easily by their beliefs. There must be some sin resting 
upon the nation. Saul's great crime, though com- 
mitted several years before, was the most prominent 
one in the people's consciousness. The principle of 
blood revenge, which has always been so prominent 
among Semitic peoples, suggested the remedy. Even 
though the rains were delayed for six months after the 
act of atonement, the Hebrews could not but believe 
that their course was justified by the event. 

This is in accord with the ideas of the time. If it is 
not in harmony with the higher truths taught by the Lord 
Jesus, it is not surprising. The student of the Biblical 
history must discriminate between the facts and the in- 
terpretation. The facts are not discredited, even though 
the interpretation of them is imperfect. It is true that 
many attempts have been made to explain the difificulty 
so as to give greater value to the interpretative element; 
but they do not afford relief to the real trouble.* 

Christian faith has often been sorely perplexed by 
what have been called the moral difficulties of the Old 
Testament. Some of them are indeed serious ; for 

* A brief view of these attempts may be found in the Cambridge 
Bible, on II. Sam., p. 234!. 



198 THE OLD TESTAMENT PROM 

they compel us to choose between a perfect record and 
a perfect God. The Bible is the product of the labors of 
inspired men. Whatever view we may hold of inspira- 
tion, we must recognize a human element. Man has a 
faculty of leaving the marks of his mortality upon every- 
thing he touches. The '' immortal works " of man is all 
right as a rhetorical expression, but it does not express 
a literal truth. But in God we must assume infallibility 
in character as well as in knowledge. The Christian 
conception of God leaves no room for the slightest im- 
perfection. The Christian runs no risk in unhesitatingly 
rejecting anything which militates against his idea of 
God. He does not have to worship the sacred Book ; 
but he must worship God, and the more he recognizes 
his own frailty, the more insistent he is that the Being 
to whom he bows down must be without blemish. 

There are passages in the Old Testament that are 
scarcely consistent with this idea of God. We find 
one in the history of Moses. *' And the Israelites did 
according to the word of Moses ; and they asked from 
the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and 
clothing. And Jahveh placed the favor of the people 
in the eyes of the Egyptians, so that they complied 
with their request ; and they spoiled the Egyptians " 
(Ex. xii. 35f). If this spoiling* of the Egyptians were 

* This spoiling or plundering shows how impossible is the 
apologetic explanation that the Hebrews demanded and received 
the jewelry and clothing as due in lieu of wages. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 199 

the work of Moses alone, it would not be a serious 
matter ; but we must look a little further. In Ex. 
iii. 2 if. we read : *' And I will place the favor of this 
people in the eyes of the Egyptians; and it shall be 
when you go out you shall not go out empty ; but 
each one shall ask of her friend and of the visitor in 
her house jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and cloth- 
ing, and you shall put them upon your sons and upon 
your daughters, and you shall spoil the Egyptians." 
In xi. if. we find this similar statement : *' And Jahveh 
spoke to Moses. . . . Speak now in the ears of the 
people, that they ask each man of his neighbor, and 
each woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver, and 
jewels of gold." 

It appears therefore that Moses was acting, accord- 
ing to this narrative, by the command of God. Is this 
a fact, or the interpretation of a fact } If the former, 
then on one occasion God directed His servant to vio- 
late the eighth commandment ; if the latter is the true 
explanation, we have only to perceive that the writer 
supposed every act of the man of God was by express 
commandment of God. 

A similar case is found in the history of Samuel, 
though in one of the later sources of that history : 
"And Jahveh said to Samuel, How long wilt thou 
grieve about Saul, when I have rejected him from ruling 
over Israel? Fill thy horn with oil, and come, I will 
send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite ; for I have seen 



200 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

among his sons a king for me. And Samuel said, How 

can I go ? Saul will hear of it, and put me to death. 
And Jahveh said, Take a young calf with thee and say, 
I have come to sacrifice to Jahveh " (I. Sam. xvi. iff.). 
Did Jehovah actually direct Samuel to accomplish by 
a subterfuge what he dare not do openly } Or is this, 
too, an interpretation of Samuel's course due to the 
writer ? I have heard the incident justified by saying 
that our Lord, too, dissembled. Such an explanation 
is intolerable. We might be forced to believe that 
even an inspired writer had interpreted wrongly ; we 
cannot be forced to beheve that God has acted 
wrongly. 

Another example of the rehef which a recognition of 
the interpretative character of Hebrew history offers 
may be found in connection with the campaign against 
Ai already referred to. The first attack on this city 
by a small force was unsuccessful. The cause of the 
disaster was found in the sin of Achan, who had pur- 
loined some of the booty which had been put under 
the ban. After the sin was detected and the criminal 
put to death, another attack was made, and this second 
assault was successful. There is a double thread of in- 
terpretation in the narrative, due probably to its com- 
posite character. We have, in fact, two explanations 
of the defeat. We are told that for the first assault but 
three thousand men (Josh. vii. 4) were sent, and they 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 2or 

were easily repulsed. On the second assault thirty 
thousand"^ men were placed in ambush, while Joshua 
led the rest of the army in a direct attack. Then, 
again, we are told that the first repulse was due to the 
sin of Achan. 

It is easy here, as elsewhere, to separate the actual 
historic facts from the interpretation, and to judge each 
by itself. The historic facts are not to be mixed up 
with the theology of the narrator. The two explana- 
tions of the failure to take the city at the first attempt 
show the difference between looking at the matter 
from the military and from the religious point of view. 

The theological explanation of the writer is not free 
from difficulties for the earnest student. It was cer- 
tainly a severe penalty for the sin of a single individual, 
who was not representative, that the whole people 
should suffer a serious defeat, involving doubtless the 
lives of many brave Israelites. The fact that Achan 
was the only offender bears strong testimony to the 
righteousness of the people as a whole. Booty was a 

* According to Josh. viii. 3f., thirty thousand men were placed in 
ambush behind the city, while, according to verse 12, five thousand 
men were sent to the ambush. Verse 1 3 clears up the discrepancy by 
explaining that there were two ambushes, contrary to the rest of the 
narrative. The LXX. lacks verse 13 entirely, and all of verse 12 
except the words, ''and the ambush of the city was on the west," 
and so is consistent. Verse 13 may be explained as the compiler's 
reconciliation of the discrepant numbers, 



202 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

chief object in war. Joshua's strict command that no 
plunder be taken, even supported by the religious sanc^ 
tion of the ban, was not easy to carry out ; for it would 
seem very foolish to the conquerors to destroy so much 
stuff which would be useful to a poorly equipped peo- 
ple. Nevertheless, God may punish innocent nations 
for the sin of guilty individuals. The social fabric is a 
unity in some sense, and when one member sins all 
parts are affected more or less. 

But God's punishments are not usually of an arbi- 
trary character. God lets His people bear the natural 
consequences of their sins ; as St. Paul so happily ex- 
pressed it, " whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he 
also reap " (Gal. vi. 7). But the serious question is one 
that belongs to theelogy, and may be left with theo- 
logians. The higher criticism, however, must not be 
charged with the responsibility for its determination, 
as it is a question with which this science has nothing 
whatever to do. 

Such interpretations have little value for the student 
of history ; but they have a very great value for the stu- 
dent of the history of theology. If the bare facts had 
been told, if we had only the military explanation of the 
defeat at Ai, we should never be able to determine the 
religious point of view of the Hebrew historian. As it 
is, we know from such narratives as the above, not only 
the Hebrew conception of God's providence in history, 
but also the intense religious spirit of the Hebrew peo- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 203 

pie. There were no phenomena, even in the material for- 
tunes of these people, which did not seem to have their 
direct causes in God. If they were right in their funda- 
mental proposition, they may easily be excused for mis- 
taking sometimes the direct causes of their misfortunes. 
The true cause of the failure at Ai is clearly enough in- 
dicated in the sacred story. The over-confidence of 
the people, resulting from the easy conquest of Jer- 
icho, as already stated, led the Hebrews to exaggerate 
their own powers, and to underestimate the strength 
of the enemy. This was the sin which God punished 
with its natural and so corrective penalty. 

In cases like those just discussed, the interpretative 
element, though troublesome enough to the thoughtful 
reader, is, nevertheless, a comparatively small matter, 
and the true historical narrative is easily separated 
from it. There are other cases in which the interpre- 
tation occupies so prominent a place that it in fact 
constitutes the raison d'etre of the writing. This is 
notably the case with the Book of Chronicles, and 
therefore that book constitutes a very serious problem 
to the devout student who desires to know the facts. 
It is true that many do not find any trouble with this 
book ; but the reason is not that the troublesome 
problems are not there, but that they have never made 
a thorough study of the book. To know just what the 
Book of Chronicles is, it must be studied comparatively. 
It is a version of the history of Israel from Adam to 



204 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

the Restoration. It is therefore parallel to the histor- 
ical portions of the books from Genesis to Kings inclu- 
sive. It deals with the same events, but in a vastly 
different way. It is significant by its omissions, its 
additions, and its parallels. No extensive treatment 
of the book will be attempted here ; but some of 
its phenomena will be presented under each of 
these three divisions. The peculiar material of the 
book and its peculiar character will thus be clearly 
seen,"^ 

One important fact should first be noted. The 
place of Chronicles in the Hebrew canon is very differ- 
ent from that in the English canon. In the latter it 
is placed after Kings, at the end of the section of his- 
torical books, and before the poetical books and the 
prophets ; in the Hebrew canon it is the very last book 
of all. This has a meaning. The book was one of the 
latest to obtain canonical recognition. There is abun- 
dant evidence that its composition was late. It could 
not possibly be earlier than 400 B C, and was probably 
a century later. Its tardiness in finding a place in the 
Hebrew canon can only be satisfactorily attributed to its 

* A convenient source for the comparative study of Chronicles is 
found in "The Hebrew Monarchy," by Andrew Wood, M.A. (Lon- 
don, 1896). The notes are, however, of minor value. The prob- 
lems of the Book of Chronicles are ably discussed in " Inspiration 
and Inerrancy," by H. P. Smith. A useful synopsis will be found in 
Driver's "Introduction," p. Stgff. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 205 

peculiar character, that is, to its marked divergence 
from the earlier history in Genesis to Kings. 

I. Omissions. The first section of the book (i. i-ix. 
34) consists, for the most part, of genealogical matter. 
These tables are based mainly on the genealogical 
material in the earlier books.* 

The history proper begins with I. Chron. x. We find no 
account of the establishment of the monarchy, though 
the genealogy of Saul's house is twice given (ix. 35ff.; 
viii. 29ff .). Chronicles lacks the history of David's crown- 
ing in Hebron, and the steps by which the kingdom of 
the house of Saul was overthrown; it states that Saul 
and all his house were slain in the battle of Gilboa, and 
so the whole kingdom was at oncef turned over to 
David (x. isf.). As the Chronicler's assumption is that 
the house of Saul was extinct, all reference to David's 
dealings with Mephibosheth, or Meribaal, is omitted. 
The infliction of childlessness on David's wife, Michal, 
is omitted ; David's crhelty to the Moabites, his sin 
with Bathsheba and all the events connected with it 

* There are many significant omissions in this part. The tribe 
of Judah occupies a foremost place ; in giving the families of other 
tribes, the tribe of Levi takes the most prominent place. But these 
need not be considered here. 

t In spite of this we find in I. Chron. xxix. 27 an excerpt from 
I. Kings ii. 11, stating that David reigned seven years in Hebron 
and thirty-three years in Jerusalem ; but this passage implies that 
in Hebron he ruled over all Israel. The fuller details are given 
in II. Sam. v. 4f. 



2o6 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

are lacking. So, also, are the rebellion of Absalom 
and all the circumstances leading up to it, Amnon's in- 
cest, his murder, the exile of Absalom ; so, also, is the 
minor rebellion of Sheba, and the more important one 
of Adonijah. There is no mention of the execution of 
Saul's sons to appease the Gibeonites; of David's narrow 
escape from death at the hands of a Philistine giant 
(II. Sam. xxi. 1 5-17); of the vengeance upon his personal 
enemies which he bequeathed to Solomon; and of the 
infirmity of his old age which led to the introduction of 
Abishag to the court. 

It is evident, therefore, that the David of Chronicles 
is quite different from the David of Samuel. Nearly 
ever5^thing is omitted which is derogatory to David's 
character or to the glory of his reign. So one reading 
the history of David from Chronicles only will have no 
difficulty about reconciling the king after God's own 
heart with the facts of this king's life. 

In the history of Solomon's reign we find a number of 
omissions. The story of his marriage with the Egyp- 
tian princess is lacking, though there is allusion to her 
as the king's wife (II. Chron. viii. 11); Chronicles is 
generally silent about his polygamy and idolatry. 
There is no record of his wisdom in judgment, as 
shown in the case of the two women claiming the 
same child. Chronicles lacks also the long account of 
the organization of the kingdom and the king's wise 
sayings (I. Kings iv.) ; also the account of the con- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 207 

struction of his palace and other buildings. Chronicles 
contains no record of the anger of God at Solomon, 
His declaration that He would rend the kingdom from 
the hands of his son, and the series of revolts by which 
the empire was stripped of much of the territory which 
David had acquired by conquest (ib.y xi. 9-40). 

In the history of the period following the reign of 
Solomon we come to the most striking omissions. 
Chronicles contains no history of the northern king- 
dom, except in those cases where it is indissolubly bound 
up with the history of Judah, such as Jehoshaphat's 
joining Ahab in the campaign against Ramoth. For 
his part in this affair, however, he was, according to the 
Chronicler, sharply rebuked by Jehu the seer (H. Chron. 
xix. 2). As a consequence of this principle of ignoring 
the kingdom of Israel, we find nothing in Chronicles of 
the stories of Elijah and Elisha, which occupy so large 
a place in the book of Kings. Elisha is not mentioned 
at all, and Elijah only once [ib., xxi. 12), where it is said 
that Elijah sent a letter to Jehoram the king, telHng 
him that, because of his departing from the ways of 
Jehoshaphat his father, a great plague would fall on 
him and on his people. 

In the history of Judah there are some minor omis- 
sions, ^nd some of important matters. There is no 
mention of the altar which Ahaz had made at Jerusa- 
lem after a pattern he saw at Damascus (II. Kings xvi. 
loff.j; nor is there any account of Hezekiah's sickness, 



2o8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

and the consequent visit of the embassy from Mero- 
dach-Baladan, the king of Babylon, except the barest 
mention (11. xxxii. 24, 31). 

The purpose of the Chronicler may be clearly seen 
from these facts. He had no concern with the king- 
dom of Israel, because in the post-exilic period it was 
not existent, and the present and future of his people 
centred in Judah alone. The Chronicler desires to 
make the history of Judah appear to the best advan- 
tage, so that a veil is drawn over some of the worst 
vices of the great heroes. 

2. Additions. These are very numerous and very 
considerable in extent ; and they deal with subjects of 
several kinds. Only a partial list of additions can be 
given here. Enough will be given, however, to show 
that there is much original matter in Chronicles, and 
to indicate the character of that material. Chronicles 
gives a religious reason for Saul's death* (I. x. I3f.); it 
contains a long list of warriors who are said to have 
joined David at Ziklag, and of those said to have joined 
him at Hebron to turn over to him the kingdom of 
Saul (I. xii,); we find there also a Hst of Levites, some 
nine hundred in all, whom David gathered to carry the 
ark to Jerusalem ; an account of the ceremony and a 
Psalm which was sung on the occasion (I. xv., xvi.). 
There is one large section in I. Chronicles which has 

* His failing to keep the word of the Lord, and his consulting a 
woman with a familiar spirit. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE fV. 209 

no parallel in Samuel, viz., chaps, xxii.-xxix. There 
we find David's preparations for the building of the tem- 
ple, the charge to Solomon, the duties of the Levites, 
who are said to have numbered thirty-eight thousand, 
the courses of the priests, the singers, the gate-keepers, 
the temple treasurers, the divisions of the army, the 
princes of the tribes (except those of Gad and Reuben); 
David's ministers, his last message to the princes, officers, 
ef al.y a list of offerings for the temple made by David 
and by his officers ; his prayer before all the people, 
and the crowning of Solomon as king. 

In II. Chronicles the additions are less numerous, 
and usually consist of but short passages. There is 
ahst of the cities which Rehoboam built to strengthen 
his kingdom ; an account of the immigration of the 
Levites and others who were led to Judah -on account 
of the temple; of Rehoboam*s family, and of his de- 
cline (xi. 5-23). The Chronicler tells us how the king 
and princes humbled themselves when Shishak the 
king of Egypt invaded the land, and gives the prom- 
ise of deliverance (xii. 2ff.). There is an account of 
a battle between Abijah of Judah with 400,000 chosen 
men, and Jeroboam of Israel with 800,000 men ; Abi- 
jah addresses the Israelites, denouncing their rebellion, 
and appeals to them not to fight against Jehovah, the 
God of their fathers. Jeroboam had placed a 
part of his army in Abijah's rear, and began to attack 
him ; but God smote Jeroboam, and the people of 



210 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Israel fled, Abijah and his men pursuing until they had 
slain 300,000 men of Israel (xiii.). 

In the reign of the good king Asa the Chronicler 
places an otherwise unknown battle with the Ethio- 
pians. Asa, vv^ith 300,000 Judeans and 280,000 Ben- 
jamites, all mighty men of valor, met Zerah with 1,000,- 
000 Ethiopians and 300 chariots ; again Jehovah struck 
a decisive blov/ in aid of Judah so that the Ethiopian 
force was annihilated. There follows a message of a 
prophet who is called Azariah the son of Oded [also 
Oded alone], commending the king for his fidelity to 
Jehovah, and assuring him of success if he continued 
in the right way (xv. 1-8). Then Asa assembled 
the people of his kingdom, with many refugees from 
the north, renewed the altar of Jehovah, and offered 
in sacrifice 700 oxen and 7,000 sheep, entering into 
a covenant to put to death those who did not serve 
Jehovah (xiv. 6-xv. 15). The Chronicler relates that 
Hanani the seer rebuked Asa for making an alliance 
with Syria against Baasha, king of Israel ; that Asa 
in anger put the seer in prison and "oppressed some 
of the people" (xvi. 7-10). 

There are some notable additions to the history of 
Jehoshaphat, especially of such matters as tended to 
magnify his greatness. We are told that his army num- 
bered 1,160,000 men under four commanders (xvii.); 
that his land was invaded by a great host which was 
destroyed by Jehovah in answer to the king's fervent 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 21 r 

prayer (xx.). There is also an account of Jehosha- 
phat's legal reforms, his institution of teachers and 
judges under the general direction of Amariah the 
chief priest (xvii., xix.). 

In Chronicles alone we find an account of the apos- 
tasy of Judah after the death of the priest Jehoiada ; 
the prophecy of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada that Je- 
hovah had forsaken the wicked people ; the stoning 
of this prophet by the command of king Joash (xxiv. 
15-22). We find also a notice of Amaziah's hiring 
ICX),CK)0 mercenaries from Israel for a hundred talents 
of silver, who were sent back, however, by the urgent 
counsel of a man of God (xxv. 5-10). There is an ac- 
count of the victories of Uzziah, by which the kingdom 
was greatly strengthened, and also of the great mili- 
tary preparations inaugurated in his reign. There we 
have the memorable account of Uzziah's conflict with 
the priests. The king went into the temple to burn 
incense. The eighty priests under Azariah withstood 
him, declaring that priests alone were competent to 
burn incense, and ordering the king out of the sanctuary. 
The king was very angry, but was helpless, because Je- 
hovah had smitten him with leprosy (xxvi. 5-20). In 
the history of Manasseh's reign there is an important 
addition. According to the Chronicler, Manasseh was 
carried in chains to Babylon. The king cried to Je- 
hovah, and he was delivered and restored to his king- 
dom. Then he strengthened the fortifications of Je- 



212 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

rusalem, and suppressed the idolatrous worship which 
had been the cause of his ruin (xxxiii. I iff.). 

In these additions we notice the tendency to magnify 
the kingdom of Judah, the prominence of the priests 
and Levites, the frequency with which prophets are 
introduced to commend kings when they are faithful to 
Jehovah, and to condemn them when they are apos- 
tate. The victories of Judah are due to the power of 
Jehovah, and are given as an answer to the kings' 
prayers. We note, also, the extraordinarily large 
numbers of the men of war in these additions. 

3. Parallel Passages. It is not easy to give in a short 
space an adequate idea of the difference of treatment 
between Chronicles and the earlier history upon which 
it is in part based. Many sections of the earlier history 
are incorporated bodily into Chronicles; but it is not 
often that we find a verbatim agreement. Many of the 
minor differences may be due to textual corruption; but 
many are certainly intentional. As we follow the par- 
allel passages we find that the Chronicler frequently 
makes small omissions and additions, besides stating 
things differently from the earlier historians. 

The Book of Kings gives invariably as its sources 
of information two records : '' The chronicles of the 
Kmgs of Israel," always quoted for the history of Is- 
rael, and ''the chronicles of the Kings of Judah," 
always quoted for the history of Judah. "^ 

*The only exception that I have noted is I. Kings xi. 41, where 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 213 

In Chronicles the sources are never distinguished in 
this way. Once there is " the commentary [or midrash] 
of the book of the Kings " (II. xxiv. 27; cf. II. Kings 
xii. 19); most frequently the source is called "" the 
book of the Kings of Judah and Israel," or '' Israel and 
Judah," e.g., II. xvi. 11 ; xxv. 26; xxvii. 7, Then 
we have several sources not mentioned elsewhere, the 
parallel to which in Kings is the books named above. 
I. Chron. xxix. 29, '' The acts of David the king . . . 
are written in the history (literally ' words ') of Sam- 
uel the seer, and in the history of Nathan the prophet, 
and in the history of Gad the seer." II. Chron. ix. 
29, ''The acts of Solomon . . . are they not writ- 
ten in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the 
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of 
Iddo the seer?" (cf. I. Kings xi. 41). /^., xii. 15, "The 
acts of Rehoboam . . . are they not written in the 
histories of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer, 
after the manner of the genealogies." xiii. 22, "The 
acts of Abijah . . . are written in the commen- 
tary of the prophet Iddo." xx. 34, "The acts of Jehosha- 
phat . . . are written in the history of Jehu the son 
of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the Kings 
of Israel." xxvi. 22, " The acts of Uzziah . . . did 
Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, write." xxxii. 
32, " The acts of Hezekiah . . . are written in the 

the unwritten part of Solomon's history is said to be contained in 
" the book of the acts of Solomon "; cf. II. Chron, ix. 29. 



214 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, in the 
book of the Kings of Judah and Israel." lb., xxxiii. i8f., 
" The acts of Manasseh and his prayer unto his God 
. . . are written among the acts of the Kings of 
Israel. His prayer, also, and how God was entreated 
of him, and all his sins and his trespass ... are 
written in the history of Hozai."* 

Some cases of parallehsm may be best shown by 
again resorting to parallel columns. 

And the king went And Solomon and all the assembly 
to Gibeon to sacrifice with him went to the high place which was 
there ; for that was at Gibeon ; for there was God's tent of 
the great high place meeting, which Moses the servant of 
(I. Kings iii. 4). Jahveh had made in the wilderness (II. 

Chron. i. 3). 

The Chronicler says indeed that Solomon worship- 
ped at the high place in Gibeon ; but the odium of 
worshipping at such a place is removed by his ex- 
planation that the tabernacle was there. 

* It might seem at first sight that the Chronicler had sources of 
information which were unknown to the author of Kings, or, at 
all events, unnamed by him. There is this difficulty in the theory 
of the genuineness of these sources : the additional material in 
Chronicles is always in a peculiar style, whereas the excerpted 
portions are quoted in their original form, and have a style easily 
distinguished from the Chronicler's. For a critical discussion of 
these sources reference may be made to Driver, L. O. T.*, p. 527 
ff., and to the other Introductions. 



THE MO DERM POINT OF VIEW, 215 

And again the anger of Jahveh And Satan stood up against 
was kindled against Israel, and Israel, and moved David to 
he moved David against them, number Israel (I. Chron. xxi. i). 
saying, Go, number Israel and 
Judah (II. Sam. xxiv. i). 

This passage shows the theological development in 
the time of the Chronicler, the idea of Satan being of 
iate origin. There are some other interesting differ- 
ences in this story. The Israelites, according to Chron- 
icles, number 1,100,000, against 800,000 in Samuel; 
the Judeans 470,000, against 500,000 ; in Chronicles 
David is offered three years' famine, in Samuel seven 
years' ; according to Chronicles David paid six hun- 
dred shekels of gold (about $6,coo) for the threshing 
floor of Araunah, but according to Samuel fifty shekels 
of silver ($30). The Chronicler explains that David 
sacrificed at the newly erected altar because he could 
not go to Gibeon, where the tent of meeting was, be- 
cause he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the 
Lord. 

Hiram king of Tyre aided The cities which Huram had 
Solomon with timbers of cedar restored to Solomon, Solomon 
and with timbers of cypress and built them up, and caused the 
with gold, according to his full Israelites to dwell there (II. 
desire. Then king Solomon Chron. viii. 2). 
gave to Hiram twenty cities in 
the land of Galilee (I. Kings ix. 11). 

It must be noted here that according to Chronicles 
the cities were given by Huram to Solomon. '' The 



2l6 



THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 



Chronicler follows later and erroneous tradition, which 
would not permit the immeasurably rich Solomon to 
cede any cities."* 

But when Ahaziah the king of Now the destruction of Aha- 
Judah saw this, he fled by the ziah was of God, in that he 
way of the garden house. And went unto Joram ; for when he 
Jehu followed after him, and was come, he went out with Je- 
said, Him also. They smote horam unto Jehu the son of 
him in the chariot at the ascent Nimshi, whom J a h v e h had 

anointed to cut off the house of 
Ahab. And it came to pass 
when Jehu was executing judg- 
ment upon the house of Ahab, 
that he found the princes of 
Judah, and the sons of the 
brethren of Ahaziah, and he 
slew them. And he sought 
Ahaziah, and they caught him 
(now he was hiding in Samaria), and they brought him to Jehu, 
and slew him ; and they buried him, for they said, He is the son 
of Jehoshaphat, who sought Jahveh with all his heart (H. Chron, 
xxii. 7-9). 

The radical difiference between these two narratives 
is obvious. The variations are partly to be explained 
as due to different traditions, partly to the peculiar 
ideas of the Chronicler. The visit to the northern 
king was, in the eyes of the Chronicler, so grave a sin 
that its proper punishment was death. 



of Gur, which is by Ibleam. 
And he fled to Megiddo, and 
died there. And his servants 
carried him in a chariot to Jeru- 
salem, and buried him in his 
sepulchre with his fathers in the 
city of David (II. Kings ix. 27f.). 



*0ettli, ** Com. on Chronicles," in loc. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 217 

And his servants arose, and And when they were departed 
made a conspiracy, and smote from him (for they abandoned 
Joash at Beth-Millo, which goes him in great diseases), his own 
down to Silla. And Jozacar the servants conspired against him 
son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad for the blood of the sons of Je- 
the son of Shomer, his servants, hoiada the priest, and they slew 
smote him, and he died ; and him on his bed, and he died ; 
they buried him with his fathers and they buried him in the city 
in the city of David (II. Kings of David ; but they buried him 
xii. 2of.). not in the sepulchre of the kings. 

And these are they that con- 
spired against him : Zabad the son of Shimeath an Ammonitess, 
and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith a Moabitess (II. Chron. 
xxiv. 2 5f.). 

The Chronicler finds the moral cause of Joash's as- 
sassination, and because of his sin denies the statement 
of Kings that he Avas buried with his fathers. Or the 
reason for his burial apart from his fathers may be that 
he died of a contagious disease. Chronicles contra- 
dicts Kings also in regard toUzziah, who died a leper, 
saying that he was buried ** with his fathers in the field 
of burial which belonged to the kings " (XL Chron. 
xxvi. 23; cf. II. Kings xv. 7). This is one of the many 
places where the Chronicler reads into earlier history 
the ideas of his own day. 

There are some cases in which the Chronicler places 
events in a different sequence from Kings. Thus he 
places Josiah's destruction of the Asherahs, images, al- 
tars of Baal, etc., in the early part of his reign, six years 



2i8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

before the discovery of the book of the Law. Substan- 
tially the same thing is placed in Kings after the 
book of the Law is found, and the reformation is de- 
scribed as an attempt to put the new law into execu- 
tion. 

The facts in regard to the Book of Chronicles have 
been sufficiently exhibited, although the incomplete- 
ness of the exhibit is freely acknoXvledged. But a 
fuller showing would only strengthen the evidence that 
the Book of Chronicles is written with a purpose other 
than purely historical. As a historian, the defect of 
the Chronicler is his lack of perspective. The institu- 
tions of his own day are by him supposed to have 
existed all through the history. He depreciates the 
Northern Kingdom, judging it purely by its final re- 
sults, and on the other hand idealizes the kingdom of 
Judah. Hence we notice the uniformity of the im- 
mense numbers of men mustered, the magnificent vic- 
tories gained by the pious kings of Judah, the absence 
of such a humiliation of a righteous king as Hezekiah's 
surrender to Sennacherib. 

The interpretative element is so prominent in Chron- 
icles that it is not a first class historical source, espe- 
cially with respect to the origin of institutions. But if 
it offers httle aid in determining the religious institu- 
tions of the age, say, of David, it is of the greatest im- 
portance in determining those of the Chronicler's own 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 219 

time. Hence the book is of great value to the Biblical 
student; but its value depends upon liis knowing the 
point of view of the author, and using it accordingly. 
Harsh judgments on Chronicles have often been made, 
but the ground of the condemnation shows its injus- 
tice. The Chronicler has been condemned for not be- 
ing other than he was. As soon as his work is per- 
ceived to be apologetic rather than historic, the ground 
of the unfavorable criticism is taken away. 

There are other cases where needless controversy 
has raged because the interpretative character of a 
sacred writing was not recognized. Take the account 
of creation in Gen. i. i-ii. 4*. For centuries that was 
interpreted as a historical document pure and sim- 
ple. Scientific researches showed the impossibility 
of statements there made, and there was a tendency 
on the one side to a hasty condemnation of the docu- 
ment as worthless; in its downfall was involved a de- 
preciation of the value of the Scriptures generally, and 
indeed of the Christian reHgion as well. On the other 
side there was an unreasoning, passionate defence of 
the indefensible. 

It is evident now that the interest of the author of 
that story was not in the facts of creation, but in the 
divine obligation of the Sabbath Day. The purpose is 
didactic, not historical. The story of creation is ideal- 
ized so as to fit in with the facts of the divine institu- 
tion of the holy Sabbath. The modern scientific spirit 



220 THE OLD TESTAMENT, 

does not favor such compositions; but that story of the 
creation was not written from the modern point of view, 
nor under the guidance of modern Hterary canons. The 
writer was consumed with his zeal for the religious in- 
stitutions which God had established for His people. 

The evidence everywhere shows that the inspired 
writers of the Old Testament had other interests than 
the mere recital of facts. The author of Kings signifi- 
cantly refers to places where facts may be found. This 
implies that he has another purpose in view; if any one 
wants mere facts, let him go to the dry records in the 
book of the chronicles of the Kings of Judah and of Is- 
rael. The writer's purpose is higher; he desires to show 
the religious meaning of Israel's history, so that the 
present generation may learn the lessons of the past. 
If one reads his book merely as history, he cannot hope 
to understand it, or to be religiously helped by it. To 
derive full benefit from the sacred writers we must 
meet them on their own ground, not try to force them 
to meet us on ours. 



CHAPTER VIII. 



^be propbete. 

THE largest contribution to the development of 
a higher spiritual religion among the Jews 
was made by the prophets. The number of 
these was very large. From the time of Samuel, who 
estabhshed prophetic schools or guilds, until the fall of 
Jerusalem, the prophets were a large and influential 
class, contributing much to the development of the 
State and of the Church. But those who did most for 
the nation were the solitary voices crying in the wilder- 
ness. The great mass of prophets were not moved by 
the disinterested purpose which constrained Amos to 
continue his God-given message, even when enjoined 
to silence by priest and king, and Jeremiah to persist 
in his pleas for righteousness in the face of hard pun- 
ishment and at the risk of his life ; yes, even when 'his 
own desires prompted him to silence. The spirit of 
these great prophets is a sufficient guarantee that they 
were not deluded in their belief that they were sent by 
God. 

But they were ever in a minority. There was only 
one Micaiah to protest against the false utterances of 
four hundred prophets of Baal. Jeremiah stood alone, 



222 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

when the prophets and priests, vigilantly watching an 
opportunity, dragged him before a court demanding 
his death on the charge that he had spoken blasphemy. 
The effect that these prophets produced upon their 
own age was, therefore, but slight. They could not 
save their country from ruin, because their warning went 
unheeded. In the age of the restoration prophecy 
passed away, and the priesthood became the predomi- 
nant religious factor. But the great prophets lived in 
the literary age of Israel. For one reason or another* 
many of their messages were put into written form, 
and so have become the heritage of the Christian 
Church. 

But what use has the Church made of these prophe- 
cies } Has it taken account of that which was the chief 
thing with their authors, the establishment of righteous- 
ness in the nation ? Or has it rather laid chief stress 
upon the apologetic aspect of prophecy, especially in 
connection with the Messianic element ? The pre- 

* We are not often given the reason for the writing of a 
prophecy. We have, however, most important testimony in the 
case of Jeremiah. Some twenty years after he had begun to 
prophesy, when he was apparently constrained from speaking 
orally to the people, he dictated his past utterances to Baruch, his 
secretary, hoping that in this more enduring form they would move 
the people to righteousness. King Jehoiakim ruthlessly destroyed 
this whole work, but Jeremiah immediately set about the prepara- 
tion of a second edition. (See Jer. xxxvi.) 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 223 

dictive part of prophecy is that which has chiefly 
influenced the Christian Church. Now that the apolo- 
getic value of prophecy is seen to be quite different 
from what was formerly supposed, the prophetic writ- 
ings are to many Christians books without purpose 
or meaning, at least for this day. 

To recover the prophets, it is only necessary to go 
back to their own age, and read them in the light 
of their times. The historical setting is absolutely 
essential for the right and full understanding of 
these God-sent preachers of righteousness. Modern 
criticism has been engaged in the task of determin- 
ing both the particular age to which each prophecy 
belongs, and also the true historical conditions of that 
time. Its work has, therefore, been chiefly construc- 
tive and conservative. It takes prophecies from false 
positions to true ones, and preserves the canonical 
prophets as a vital part of the Christian heritage. 
This would seem to be no mean service to the Chris- 
tian religion. It is possible now to read the prophets 
in the full light of their times, and with a clear under- 
standing of the prophetic motive. The object of the 
present chapter is to show some of the results of this 
criticism, and especially the ground upon which the 
results are based. No attempt will be made to cover 
the whole field of prophecy, as such a treatment would 
require a volume by itself ; but enough will be presented 
to show the method of literary criticism, to enable the 



224 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

reader to judge of the validity of the results, and to 
appreciate their value to the Christian student. 

No other prophetic book has been subjected to such 
searching criticism as the Book of Isaiah. There was 
a time when the whole sixty- six chapters were gener- 
ally regarded as the product of Isaiah, the son of 
Amoz, who prophesied in Jerusalem 740-701 B.C. 
First, the long excerpt from the Book of Kings, 
chaps, xxxvi.-xxxix.; then the larger section, chaps, 
xl.-lxvi., commonly called 11. Isaiah, were taken away 
from this author ; finally other passages of greater or 
less extent went too, until the question could fairly 
be asked whether we should not soon have such a host 
of Isaiahs, that in reality we should have none at all. 

The greatest Enghsh critic, if not the greatest living 
critic, of Isaiah is Canon Cheyne, of Oxford. For 
many years he has patiently studied this great book, 
publishing his results from time to time in monu- 
mental volumes ; but always finding, or, at all events, 
publishing, a more radical result, until we have the 
culmination in his recent '' Introduction," and in the 
still later " Polychrome Bible." From this latter it 
will be interesting to note what prophecies are still 
assigned to the son of Amoz. These are, in the order 
given by Cheyne : ii. 6Mv. i *; v., f ix. 8-x. 4 J; vi. 

* Except ii. 9 ; iii. 2, 3, 6, 7. 
t Except verses 15, 16, 25a, 30. 
J Except ix. 15, 16; X. 4a. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 225 

1-13^; vii. 2-viii. 22,^ xvii.f xxviii, 1-4; i. 29-31 ; xiv. 
29-32; X. 5-9, 13-15; xiv. 24-27; X. 28-32; XX. I, 
3-6; xxviii. 7-22; xxix. 1-4,6,9, 10, 13-15; xxx. 
1-17; xxxi. 1-4; xxii. 15-18; xviii. 1-6; i. 2-26; 
xxii. 1-14 ; xvi. 14; xxi. 16, 17. There are some 
omissions of parts of verses which it is not deemed 
necessary to specify. To gather up these results in 
a more convenient form, and disregarding small 
omissions, Cheyne ascribes to Isaiah the following 
chapters: i -iii., v.-x., xiv. (vs. 24-32), xvii., xx., 
xxviii. In other words, chaps, iv., xi.-xvi., xviii., 
xix., xxi.-xxvii., xxix.-lxvi., are, with the exception 
of a few verses, non-Isaianic. That is, less than one- 
fifth of the Book of Isaiah was actually written by the 
son of Amoz. 

Cheyne is not alone in his main contentions. Duhm, 
e.g., is in virtual agreement with him ; and their re- 
sults are those of the extreme radical critics of the 
present day. Driver is a good representative of the 
more modern criticism, which is, at the same time, 
scientific. He holds that the following chapters are 
Isaianic : % i.-xii., xiv. 24-32 ; xv., xvi., xvii -xx., 

*Except vii. 8^, 15, 17, 21-25; viii. 19, 20. 

t Except 7, 8. 

\ Driver expresses the general doubt as to the Isaianic authorship 
of chap, xii., and also of xv.-xvi. 12, which may have been written 
by Isaiah at an earlier time, or may be quoted from some earlier 
prophet. 



226 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

xxi. ii-xxiii,, xxviii.-xxxii., comprising about one- 
third of the whole book.* Driver's position is regarded 
as the most conservative that is critically tenable, while 
Cheyne's may certainly be looked upon as going as far 
as criticism can, and considerably further, in the 
writer's opinion, than the known or present knowable 
facts warrant. 

That many of the prophecies in this book do not 
belong to Isaiah is clearly demonstrable ; that others 
do not may be made highly probable; but critical 
analysis has not yet advanced to the point to m.ake 
Cheyne's results more than an important suggestion 
of possibilities. There are four sections of the Book 
of Isaiah, besides the historical section, xxxvi.-xxxix., 
which belong to another age than Isaiah, viz.: xiii. 
i-xiv. 23; xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv.-xxxv. ; xl.-lxvi. Mod- 
ern critics are absolutely unanimous in regard to these. 
The most apparent evidence for this conclusion is easily 
presented. 

Before considering this evidence, however, atten- 
tion must be called to a fundamental principle — the 
relation of the prophet to his times. It is almost an 
axiom in criticism now, that an allusion to a known 

* These proportions take on a truer look if we remember that 
chaps, xxxvi.-lxvi. , or more than half of the whole book, are pro- 
nounced non-Isaianic by all modern critics, even by many con- 
servatives. Driver accepts as Isaianic nearly twice as much as 
Cheyne. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 227 

historical event fixes the terminus a quo of a given 
prophecy. But this is not based on an a priori as- 
sumption. It is a clear deduction from the known 
phenomena of prophecy. The prophet, though a man 
raised up of God to lead his people to righteousness, 
was pre-eminently a man of his tim.es. This is clearly 
seen in all the cases in which the prophecies have 
been correctly dated by tradition. We can read the 
history of Jeremiah's age much better in his book than 
in Kings. The subjects of which the prophets spoke 
were those which vitally concerned the people of their 
day. Why did Amos leave his flocks and go to Bethel 
and deliver a message most unwelcome to the people 
there ? Because he could " discern the signs of the 
times." He saw the danger which loomed up on the 
horizon, and the moral decadence of the people which 
was making them unfit to meet it. God had opened 
his eyes and made him the instrument to open the 
eyes of the people. 

It is of course possible that there might be a phe- 
nomenon in prophecy very different from that stated 
above. A prophet might care little for the affairs of 
his own day, and concentrate his interest wholly on 
the future. In fact, almost all of them do this, although 
only to a very limited extent."^ But when they do 

* This is one of the points at issue to-day between the extreme and 
the conservative critics. Many regard such pictures of the future as 
Amos ix. 11-15; Isa. ii. 2-4; ix. 1-7, xi., as later interpolations. 



228 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

transport themselves into the future, the identity of 
authorship is seen in part from the likeness of style ; in 
part from the fact that a prophet transporting himself 
into the future, as a historian burying himself in the 
past, is almost certain incidentally to betray his own 
age by unmistakable allusions. 

Formerly Isa. xl.-lxvi. was regarded as an Isaianic 
composition. It was never contended that it had any 
bearing upon the age of Isaiah ; it was freely admitted 
that the subject was the exile in Babylon. But it was 
held, as Delitzsch once put it, that the prophet lived 
*' a pneumatic life among the exiles."^ There would 
be nothing Z^?'^^ impossible in this, though it would be 
improbable. But there are other facts which have to be 
considered. These prophecies do not show even by 
any chance allusion the earlier age of the supposed 
writer. In other cases of prediction, the agreement in 
detail with the future condition is rarely close, and in 
fact is often quite remote. Finally, the style is usually 
quite different from that of the writer to whom they 
are credited. There is therefore good ground for giv- 
ing great weight to the historical, allusions. We may 
now take up these sections of the book of Isaiah in 
detail. 



Criticism has, in my judgment, been too sweeping in dealing with 
passages of this character. 

* This is found in the early editions of his work on Isaiah. In 
his last edition he accepted the critical view. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 229 

I. xiii. i-xiv. 23. The evidence in favor of the 
Isaianic authorship of this passage is the fact that 
it is found in the book of Isaiah, with genuine Isaianic 
prophecies before and after it ; and that it has the head- 
ing, *'The oracle on Babylon which Isaiah the son of 
Amoz saw." But the value of this evidence is not very 
great, because it rests on a late Jewish tradition. The 
historical section, xxxvi.-xxxix., taken from the Book 
of Kings, was inserted in the book at least as late as the 
exilic period, * and therefore other parts might have 
been added. It is impossible to go into the question 
of the titles to prophecies here. The subject will be 
discussed more fully in the chapters on the Psalter. 
They are, however, surely the addition of the editors 
who arranged the prophecies, and were much later than 
the prophecies themselves. This is not an assumption, 
but may be surely proved. The evidence then is sim- 
ply that a post-exiUc editor regarded this prophecy as 
Isaiah's; but it must be remembered that his opinion 
was expressed at least two centuries later than Isaiah. f 

On the other hand, there is a good deal to be said 
for the contrary view. The prophecy deals with the 
downfall of Babylon. But Babylon was not a power 
formidable to the Jews in Isaiah's day. His utter- 

* As the Book of Kings carries the history down to the exilic 
period, it evidently could not have been composed before that 
time. 

t See Cheyne's note in Polychrome Bible, p. 173. 



230 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

ances were directed toward the overthrow of Assyria ; 
and this even was not accomplished till a century after 
his time. Babylon was to be overthrown by the 
Medes (xiii. 17). This people did not become an effec- 
tive force till long after Isaiah's age ; the Median em- 
pire was conquered by Cyrus in 549 B.C., before he 
moved against Babylon. This prophecy assumes the 
exile as an existing fact. Not only the Jews but 
other nations are held under the oppressive tyranny 
(xiv. 2, 6, 12, i6f.). Lebanon had already been devas- 
tated by the Babylonians (xiv. 8). Jacob and Israel 
are the national names (xiv. i) ; but in Isaiah's time 
these terms would mean the northern kingdom, and 
the exiles from the north cannot be the ones intended 
here, for their exile was in Assyria, not in Babylonia. 
The deliverance of the Jews from exile as a result of 
the fall of Babylon is the real subject of interest to 
the writer, and the release is looked upon as near at 
hand. The bitter spirit against Babylon, the exulta- 
tion over her downfall, are in harmony with other 
passages which belong to the period of the exile. 
There are some ideas and expressions quite unlike 
Isaiah. In regard to these, Cheyne says: '' The bal- 
ance of the evidence from ideas, phraseology and 
style is in favor of a late date (even if a number of 
facts be set aside as doubtful, on the ground of their 
dependence on critical decisions as to the date of other 
disputed writings), and very decidedly opposed to the 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 231 

traditional theory of Isaiah's authorship" (Polychrome 
Bible, p. 173). 

The above considerations require us to remove the 
prophecy from the age of Isaiah ; but they also furnish 
the data for fixing the true date within very small limits. 
Cheyne holds that it is impossible to decide whether 
it should be placed before or after Cyrus' conquest of 
Media, 549 B.C. He gives the date 550-545. Driver 
assigns it to the period "shortly before 549 B.C." (L. 

o.T.^ p. 212). 

There is not the slightest reference in the prophecy 
to the events of Isaiah's own day ; and a prophecy 
dealing with events a century and a half in the future 
could have no meaning for the men of that time. Up 
to almost the last hour the Jews were confident that 
they would not be called upon to endure exile in Baby- 
lon. The promise of deliverance from the deplorable 
condition still more than a century away, a condition 
which no one expected, would make no impression upon 
the people of that early age. 

How different the prophecy reads when we place it 
in its true position. The tyrant who has so long held 
down the Jews with his oppressive hand is about to 
fall before the irresistible forces which are mustering 
for the attack. The zealous Jews, who had sat down 
and wept by the waters of Babylon as they thought of 
the holy city, perceived from the message of the clear- 
sighted prophet that the prisoners of Babylon would 



232 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

soon be set free, that they would soon sing again the 
Lord's song in the Lord's land. The bitterness against 
Babylon would be strange from Isaiah ; but a prophet 
of the exile, who had tasted of the bitter cup, might 
well declare the realization of. the hope cherished in 
that pathetic exilic Psalm (cxxxvii.) : * ^' Their in- 
fants also shall be dashed in pieces before their eyes; 
their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives dishon- 
ored " (xiii. 6; cf. Psa. cxxxvii. 9). 

2. xxiv.-xxvii. This prophecy does not contain 
such sure and simple indications of date as the one just 
considered. It is apocalyptic in character and not al- 
ways easy of interpretation. It is desirable to have in 
mind a clear idea of the contents of the prophecy. 

An overwhelmmg calamity is coming upon the 
whole earth, a calamity which will involve every class, 
and which will cause the earth to melt and pass away, 
being profaned by the touch of the wicked inhabitants. 
The transgressors will be engulfed in ruin until few are 
left. The sound of music will cease ; and a sound of 
distress will take its place. The city is a desolation, 
and its gates are ruined. 

Though shouts arise in praise of Jahveh's majesty and 
songs of glory to the righteous, yet there is naught for 
Israel but misery, because of robbers and snares. For 
the world is turned upside down. The high ones of 

* This Psalm may have been written later than assumed above ; 
but it reflects the condition and feelings of the exiles. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 233 

the earth shall be swept away. The sun and moon 
shall be confused, but Jahveh shall be king in Mount 
Zion and in Jerusalem. 

A song of praise is sung because of the wonderful 
things done by Jahveh, in bringing a city to ruin, 
and in being a shelter for the poor and needy. On 
holy Zion will Jahveh make a feast to all peoples, de- 
stroying the veils which are spread over the nations: 
that is. He will wipe away the tears and remove the 
reproach of His people. The people (Israel) will then 
clearly recognize their God for whom they have 
waited ; His hand shall rest on Mount Zion ; and con- 
fusion will come to their enemies. 

A song will be sung in praise of the strong city 
whose walls are the salvation of Jahveh, for He is 
the Rock of Ages. But the lofty city He has brought 
low; it is trodden down with the feet. Jahveh's peo- 
ple have long waited for this day. The wicked have 
taken no warning from the uplifted hand. But the 
righteous have passed from the dominion of other 
gods, and now praise only the name of Jahveh. 

In the time of trouble the suffering looked to Jah- 
veh, and poured out their prayer to Him. The earth 
shall give back the shades to hfe. But for the present 
the faithful must withdraw into their chambers until 
the storm of the Lord's wrath shall pass by. In future 
days Israel shall take root under Jahveh's protection, 
and fill the surface of the world with fruit. 



234 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Israel's punishment was not like that of his op- 
pressors. The deliverance will come v/iththe removal 
of the false worship which caused the ruin. The Lord 
will beat out the ears of wheat from Egypt to the 
Euphrates, and one by one shall the scattered sons 
of Israel return from the uttermost parts of the earth. 

This outline shows the general character of the 
prophecy. Jahveh is to bring a judgment upon the 
whole world. Israel has been in the deepest suffering 
and misery. He has long waited for an expected de- 
liverance which the overthrow of the world powers 
will bring about. Surely there was nothing in Isaiah's 
time to suggest such a picture as this. 

On the other hand, there are clear indications of the 
post-exilic age. The people are re-established in Je- 
rusalem, but in so poor an estate that, as in Zechariah, 
Jahveh's abode on Mount Zion is looked upon as still 
future (xxiv. 23). The people still suffer the reproach 
of the exile, '' Where is now thy God ?" (xxv. 8). The 
experience of those who had struggled to rebuild the 
fallen state had been bitterly disappointing (xxvi. i/f.). 
The return of the Jews, who are looked upon as still 
widely scattered, was yet future (xxvii. I2f.). The peo- 
ple had had experience of the dominion of foreign gods 
over them (xxvi. 13). The walls were either in ruins, 
or were at best an inefficient protection (xxvi. i). The 
national names, as in the preceding prophecy, were 
Jacob and Israel (xxvii. 6). " The imagery," says 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 235 

Cheyne, **is that of the later prophecies and of apoca- 
lyptic writings " (Polychrome Bible, p. 203). ** The 
ideal, or symbolic, element, is much larger than in the 
pre-exilic prophecies generally; and the closest parallels 
are Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.; Joel iii. 9-2 1 ; Zech. xii.-xiv " 
(Driver, L. O. T.^ 221). 

If there is no appropriate place in the age of Isaiah 
for this prophecy, where shall we look for its origin ? 
Opinions differ as to whether it belongs to the early 
part of the Persian age (538-332 B.C.) or to the late 
part. This is a very considerable range; but our knowl- 
edge of the period is not sufificiently exact to make a 
close determination of the date possible, especially as 
the prophecy alludes to temporal conditions but ob- 
scurely. 

There is, for instance, no mention of the name of 
the ''city of confusion," whose destruction is of such 
momentous consequence to Israel, nor is there any in- 
ference by which the city meant can be surely deter- 
mined. It is certain that in the post-exilic period 
there was great discouragement among the people, 
and the hardships which they endured were very trying 
to patience and faith. The splendid anticipations of 
the great prophet (II. Isaiah) were proving to be small 
realizations. The community had been cheered on by 
Haggai and Zechariah to the great task of rebuilding 
the temple. They were told that there was no cure for 
their woes as long as the house of God was in ruins. 



236 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Then the temple was rebuilt, and the sacrifices were 
re-estabHshed, but later, in Nehemlah's time, the con- 
dition of the Jews was still deplorable. Nehemlah at- 
tempted to remove the reproach of the people by re- 
building the walls, so that the nations surrounding 
could no longer harass them; but, even with both tem- 
ple and walls, the condition of the Jews was not much 
improved. The peoples around them were inveterate 
in their hostility, and there seemed no cure for their 
woes but such a world-judgment as that pictured in 
this prophecy. 

If we could be certain of the meaning of the ob- 
scure reference to the walls in xxvl. i, it would enable 
us to fix the date more precisely — " Salvation will he 
appoint as walls and defences"; If this means that the 
salvation of God shall take the place of walls, then the 
prophecy would belong to the time shortly before 
Nehemlah, 444 B.C. If, as Duhm holds, the passage 
should be rendered, " He produces walls and bulwarks 
for deliverance," then the passage would refer to the 
restoration of the walls by Nehemlah, or, at a later 
time, by Hyrcanus. It is, perhaps, necessary to rest 
content with the general post-exlllc period. It may be 
said, finally, in favor of the later part of this period that 
such an expectation as this prophecy reveals would be 
most natural after other things had failed. 

3. xxxiv.,xxxv. The nations are called upon to wit- 
ness Jehovah's wrath against the armed hosts of the 



THE MODERN- POINT OF VIE W. 237 

world. These forces will be devoted to destruction, the 
mountains being- dissolved with the blood of the slain. 
The destructive forces shall reach even to the heav- 
ens. Edom especially, the most hated of the hostile 
peoples, shall feel the sword of the Lord; the Edom- 
ites will serve as a great sacrifice to Jehovah. 

Zion in her struggles came at last to the time of 
recompense. The desolation of Edom will be terrible; 
streams and land will be flaming pitch and limestone, 
which shall burn forever. The waste land shall become 
the abode of the animals of the desert. The palaces 
and fortresses shall be overgrown with briars and net- 
tles. 

The wilderness will rejoice as the glory of Jehovah is 
revealed. The hands of the weak will be strengthened 
by hope, because God is coming to the rescue of His 
people. Those who have been blind will be able to 
see; the lame will walk; for water shall issue forth even 
in the desert, and grass shall grow there. A highway, 
the way of holiness, will be there, over which the res- 
cued will pass, safe from the attacks of lions or other 
beasts of prey. Jehovah's redeemed will come back to 
Zion with joyful songs. 

It is evident from this outline that the thing which 
the prophet contemplates as future is the return of the 
exiles to Zion ; the thing which is a present fact is the 
exile itself. The hands of the Jewish exiles are now 
feeble, their knees are weak and their hearts are failing 



238 THE OLD TBSTAMENT FROM 

them through fear; the people are blind, deaf, dumb, 
and lame. The bad plight of the people will be changed 
when they see a divine judgment coming upon the na- 
tions, and realize the meaning of that judgment. The 
meaning is that Zion's struggles are over, that her chil- 
dren will soon come back overflowing with joy. They 
will not take the long journey by way of the north, but 
on the highway which God shall raise up: they will 
come straight across the Syrian desert, trom Babylon 
to Jerusalem. 

The vengeance of the Lord will be visited chiefly 
upon Edom. The prophet- poet depicts exhaustively 
the utter desolation which is coming upon that hated 
land. No other nation is mentioned, either expressly 
or impliedly. In the earlier days of the exile, indigna- 
tion against the mighty power of Babylon was almost 
lost in the intense bitterness toward the descendants 
of Esau. The affliction from the hands of the great 
world power was tolerable because inevitable; but that 
Edomites should have picked up Jewish refugees in 
the wilderness and handed them over to Babylon, that 
they should have exulted in the fall of Jerusalem's 
walls, and defiled the sacred soil of Zion, was almost 
more than the Jew could bear. 

This prophecy, like the others, has no fitness in the 
times of Isaiah. It would be utterly unintelligible in 
that time. It would have had no meaning for that 
generation. But in the first part of the exihc period 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 239 

it expresses admirably the feelings of despair and of 
hope which alternately moved the hearts of those who 
w^ere chafing under the restraints of the bondage in 
Babylonia. 

Cheyne, it is true, dates this prophecy 400 B.C. or 
later. He thinks that the two chapters are connected, 
and may have come from the same author. He says 
further that '* both were evidently written in Judah, 
and are late post-exilic works " ( Polychrome Bible, 
p. 201). 

That there are expressions which point to a later 
date than the exile cannot be denied; that it ** evi- 
dently was v/ritten in Judah" does not by any means 
seem so clear. There is much likeness between chap. 
XXXV. and H. Isaiah, but it is not certain that the for- 
mer is dependent upon the latter, as Cheyne holds, still 
less that chap, xxxiv. is ** mainly based on the oracle 
on Babylon!' chap, xiii.f , as he further alleges. 

While the bitterness toward Edom was felt at a much 
later time than the exile, as we know from Malachi, 
there is most reason, on the whole, to place this proph- 
ecy in the exilic period. Driver and Dillman assigned 
it to the closing years of the exile. But that would 
make it contemporary with H. Isaiah, and make diffi- 
cult of explanation the silence in regard to Babylon and 
Cyrus. The writer does not seem to have a clear idea 
.f t'le source from, which Jehovah's deliverance will 
come ; but contents himself with the assurance that it 



240 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

will come, and that it will be the hour of doom for 
Edom. 

Before passing on to consider the last section of the 
book of Isaiah, a brief digression may be permitted, as 
it is suggested by a query likely to rise in the reader's 
mind. It appears from the consideration of the above 
prophecies that all modern critics are agreed that they 
belong to an age much later than Isaiah, but at that 
point disagreement begins. One school of critics 
places them much later than others. All agree that 
they could not have been written before the exile ; but 
the difterence of date assigned by different critics is in 
one case as much as two centuries. 

This is a good illustration of the subject discussed in 
an earlier chapter as to the invaHdation of the results 
of criticism by the difference of opinion among the 
critics.* The people want positive results. If they 
are constrained to take these chapters out of the cate- 
gory of Isaianic writings, they do not want to leave 
them suspended in mid-air, but want a reasonably sure 
date to which they may be assigned. It is only by reach- 
ing such a result that constructive work can be done. 
Some may feel that it is better to hold on to a discred- 
ited theory at least until another theory is securely 
established in its place. 

* It may be remarked that this argument is a two-edged sword, 
and cuts both ways. There is also great difference of opinion 
among the upholders of traditional views. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 241 

Much sympathy must be felt for such a feeling-. But 
it will be recognized that there are two things to con- 
sider: the invalidation of critical results by the failure 
of critics to agree, and the unwillingness to abandon 
one theory until a better and unanimously accepted 
theory takes its place. The essential question in these 
cases is not between one precise date and another. 
Even in regard to the undisputed prophecies of Isaiah 
there is much difference of opinion among all classes 
of critics, from the most ultra-conservative to the most 
radical, as to the exact date. Chap, i., for example, is 
regarded by some as the earliest of Isaiah's prophecies, 
and by others as the latest. It is variously dated within 
the whole forty years of the prophet's career. The es- 
sential question is always, at first, whether the prophecy 
is Isaianic or not. There is absolute unanimity of opin- 
ion among modern critics in the answer to this ques- 
tion. But it is not essential to the validity of this result 
that the agreement should go so far as to fix the exact 
year of composition. 

Some critics show a marked tendency to date all 
such prophecies at the latest period possible, others at 
the earliest period that will meet the facts. It is not a 
vital matter whether early or late ; but it often must hap- 
pen that there is not sufficient evidence in the proph- 
ecy to determine its period more than approximately, 
and external evidence fails us entirely. The lack of 
full knowledge of the post-exilic period greatly ham- 



242 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

pers the critic in fixing the date of obscure prophecies. 
It will appear, it is hoped, from the consideration of 
the prophecies treated above, that criticism has accom- 
plished enough to show a real though not a final work 
of construction. It is satisfactory, at any rate, to turn 
to a great prophecy, or collection of prophecies, in 
regard to which there is more accord on the posi- 
tive side. 

4. xl.-lxvi. On the religious side there are no finer 
prophecies than those in this collection. There, are 
none which better repay an exhaustive study. The 
constructive study has been foremost from the begin- 
ning of the criticism of this collection. For it was the 
clear perception of the actual period to which the 
prophecies belong that led irresistibly to their separa- 
tion from the age of Isaiah. 

The question of the unity of the Book of Isaiah is 
now obsolete; but the question of the unity of II. Isaiah 
is still under discussion. No one can easily doubt that 
more than one hand has been at work here; but the 
question is whether the alien parts were incorporated 
by the author of the major part of this great work, or 
whether the present book is the result of a compilation 
of several different prophecies belonging to different 
periods. 

A glance through the Polychrome Bible shows 
Cheyne's conclusions. The original prophecies of the 
** second Isaiah " are colored dark red. These are 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 243 

chaps, xl.-xlviii. — except xlii. 1-7, xliv. 9-20, xlvi. 6- 
8, and parts of xlviii. The passages which deal with 
the " servant of Jehovah " are marked by dark purple. 
Light blue marks passages written or inserted by an 
editor. These are in the main xliv. 9-20 ; xlvi. 6-%\ 
xlviii. I, 2, 4, 5^, 7^, 8^-10, 17-19, 22; Ivii. 13^-21. 
Light red marks passages which belong to various 
other sources: these are in the main xlix. 13-I. 3; 
li. i-lii. 2, 7-12 ; liv. i-lvii. 13*; Iviii.-lxvi. There are 
also minor passages in dark blue. There were, there^ 
fore, several different hands in the composition of this 
work, of which the " great unknown " was the basis. 
The dates assigned by Cheyne extend from 550-545 
B.C. (the second Isaiah) to 350 B.C. 

That the whole of this great work does not belong 
to one brief period has been shown long ago.* The 
prophecy begins with the period when the discerning 
eye of a God-illumined prophet can clearly see that 
great event which is still veiled from the people — the 
fall of Babylon. We can see as we read on the doom 
of the great city drawing nearer and nearer; we see the 
blow fall which breaks the fetters of the exiled Jews; 
we can follow the latter on the weary road back to Zion, 
and see their hard struggles in their attempt to bring 
order out of that chaos. But it is not so certain that 

*The present writer some years ago published an essay on this 
subject, "The Historical Movement Traceable in Isaiah xl.- 
Ixvi." — Andover Review, August, 1891. 



244 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

in this collection we can go on to the age of Nehemiah, 
and even much further. 

It is clear, further, that the *' servant " passages have 
marked points in common as well as in contrast. It is 
probable that the ''second Isaiah " was not the author 
of that queen of Messianic prophecies, lii. 13-liii.; but 
it is not clear that this gem was not incorporated by 
the author of this book. It is true that some of the 
later chapters, especially Ixiii.-lxvi , may well be as- 
signed to a later writer ; but there does not seem to 
be sufficient ground for such a radical dissection as 
Cheyne's. But all this is incidental to our main pur- 
pose, which is to show that this prophetic work belongs 
to the period of the exile, and that its religious and de- 
votional value is greatly enhanced by reading it in its 
true connection. 

God has not left Himself without witness among 
the sons of men in any age, least of all in that which 
was the most disheartening in all the history of Israel. 
Jeremiah declares that there will be a time when men 
will no longer say, the " God who brought us out of 
Egypt," but "the God who brought us out of Baby- 
lon." The exile in Babylonia was of greater moment 
than the bondage in Egypt. Then the nation's life had 
not yet begun ; Israel consisted of wandering tribes of 
nomads. But after six centuries of national life in 
Canaan, the nation was swept away, and held in a bond- 
age that was none the less galling that it was light. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 245 

The exiles were not compelled to make bricks without 
straw ; but they were denied recourse to the holy soil, 
and even Zion could have meant little to the pious at 
that time, because it was a scene of desolation, and 
the temple was no more. 

The time-serving- prophets had deluded the exiles 
with false hopes of a speedy return before Jerusalem 
actually fell. After that there was the inevitable re- 
action, and hope soon died. The pious might indeed 
say: 

*• If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, 
Let my right hand forget. 
Let my tongue cleave to my mouth, 
If I remember thee not ; 
If I prefer not Jerusalem 
Above my chief joy." — PsA. cxxxvii. 5f. 

But for the mass of the people there was nothing to 
do but build houses, plant vineyards, marry wives and 
beget children, as Jeremiah had advised. That the 
exile would be long was becoming only too plain. 
Those who had been born in the holy land, and had 
made the long march to Babylon as captives, were fast 
dying off. A new generation, born on foreign soil, was 
growing up, to whom the knowledge of the national 
Hfe in Judah came only from the diligent instruction of 
the fathers. They had been faithfully taught that they 
were citizens of another country. But time does its 
work, however difficult the task may be. Jewish homes 



246 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

and interests in Babylonia had taken on a stable char- 
acter. The zeal for the Judaean life cooled among 
the masses, and must be rekindled if the people were 
to be ready to take advantage of the liberty which was 
to come. 

The second Isaiah was mainly the fire which re- 
kindled the zeal that made the restoration possible. 
Was that '' second Isaiah " an old esoteric prophecy 
cherished for a century and a half until its unintelligible 
riddles should take on meaning? Or was it a living 
voice raised up of God to meet the occasion when it 
came ? On a priori grounds, the latter would be far 
more probable, and it is the only hypothesis which is in 
harmony with the phenomena of the prophecy itself. 
This prophet was peculiarly a man of his time. He 
breathes the air of the exile, though his hopes are so 
steadfastly built upon the new Jerusalem which he saw 
rising in the distance. 

The convincing evidence that this book belongs to 
the exile and not to the time of Isaiah is found in the 
book itself. Let any one read chapter after chapter 
from the point of view of the exilic period, and he will 
be persuaded that the theory that it originated in any 
other age bristles with difficulties not easy to meet. 
The only evidence of Isaianic authorship is that this 
prophecy constitutes a part of the Book of Isaiah. But 
even this argument has less cogency here than for 
earlier chapters; because this collection is separated 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 247 

from the other prophecies of the Book of Isaiah by a 
long historical passage which, as already shown, could 
not have been added before the exile. The name of 
Isaiah is not found in the collection anywhere ; there 
is no allusion to him or to his times ; and when the 
author does revert to himself, or use the first person, 
we see a very different personage from the Isaiah we 
know. 

There is no vagueness in the description of the Jews' 
condition, nor in the manner of their release. That 
the Jews are represented as in actual captivity in Baby- 
lon is clear from every page. The prophet sees the 
conquering career of Cyrus, and perceives that Baby- 
lon is the goal of his campaigns. He knows that the 
hard policy of Babylon, which " releases not his pris- 
oners," is contrary to the milder policy of Cyrus, who 
hopes to rule subject peoples by gaining their good- 
will — the only method in the whole history of the 
world which has proved permanently effective. On 
Cyrus, therefore, the prophet's hopes are built. Cyrus 
is the instrument of his God — not an instrument of 
wrath, as the Assyrians and Chaldeans had been, to 
be used, and then broken and cast away — but an in- 
strument of love. 

Therefore, Cyrus is praised above any foreign ruler 
known in the Old Testament. Cyrus' present con- 
quests are due to Jehovah's favor : '' He gives nations 
before him, and causes him to subdue kings ; He gives 



248 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

them to his sword like the dust, as the driven stubble 
to his bow " (xh. 2). Jehovah is the One that says of 
Cyrus : " He is my shepherd, and shall complete all 
my pleasure " (xliv. 28). But there is greater honor 
than this ; for the prophet goes on to say : *' Thus 
saith Jahveh to his anointed (2>., to His Messiah), to 
Cyrus, of whose right hand I have taken hold. . . . 
I will go before thee, and make the rugged places 
plain. Doors of brass I v/ill break to pieces, and bars 
of iron I will cut asunder, that thou mayest know that 
I Jahveh, who am calling thee by thy name, am the 
God of Israel " (xlv. 1-3). But Cyrus was not conscious 
of the power by which his conquests were so easily ac- 
complished, nor was that power conferred for any favor 
to him : *' For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel 
my chosen, though thou knowest me not. I will gird 
thee, though thou knowest me not " {ib.^ 4f.). 

It appears that the idea of owing their release to a 
foreign conqueror was not agreeable to the patriotic 
Jews. They would prefer to owe their freedom to a 
hero whom God had raised up from among themselves, 
as Moses was raised up to take their fathers out of Egypt, 
and as the native "judges " were raised up to expel the 
enemy from their land ; or they would prefer that God 
should directly intervene, as the Chronicler was so fond 
of representing Him as doing. The prophet rebukes 
the spirit that ventures to question the mysterious ways 
of Providence : " Woe to him that striveth with the one 



THE MODERN- POINT OF VIE W, 249 

that formed him, a potsherd among the potsherds of 
the ground ! Shall the clay say to him that formed 
it, What makest thou? or, Thy work has no hands? 
Woe unto him who says to a father, What begettest 
thou? or to a woman. With what travailest thou? 
. . . I have made the earth, and man upon it have 
I created. My own hands have stretched out the 
heavens, and all their host have I commanded [or are 
under my orders]. I have raised him [Cyrus] up in 
righteousness, and I will make straight all his ways. 
He shall build my city, and he shall let my exiles go 
free, without price and without reward, saith Jahveh 
of hosts " (xlv. 9-13). 

There is a brief passage which shows very clearly 
the manner in which Nabonidus, the last king of Baby- 
lon, tried to save the city. " Bel bows down, Nebo 
stoops ; their idols are upon the beasts, and upon the 
cattle ; your portable things are a load, a burden to 
the weary beast. They stoop, they bow down to- 
gether ; they are not able to deliver the burden, but 
are themselves going into captivity " (xlvi. if). Naboni- 
dus saw that the city was ill prepared to withstand 
the conqueror. He, therefore, brought into Babylon 
the deities from many sacred places."^ Cyrus cites to 
his own credit the fact that he restored these deities to 
their ancient shrines. 

*Sayce holds that this was done in an attempt at the centrali- 
zation and unification of religion. 



250 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

That the prophet should exult in the downfall of 
the tyrant was natural. He had experienced the hard- 
ships of the exilic life. So he cries with contempt : 
'' Get thee down and sit upon dust, O virgin daughter 
of Babylon, sit on the earth without a throne, O 
daughter of the Chaldeans : for they shall no more 
call thee tender and delicate. Take millstones, and 
grind meal: remove thy veil, strip off the train, lay bare 
the leg, pass through the river " (xlvii. if.). When Bab}^- 
lon experienced the humiliation which it had inflicted 
upon so many other peoples, the prophet recognizes 
the hour of Israel's deliverance, and closes the first 
section of his prophecy with the cry : " Go forth from 
Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans, with a voice of sing- 
ing make known, tell this, spread it forth unto the 
end of the earth : say Jahveh has redeemed his servant 
Jacob" (xlviii. 20). 

As before stated, the most adequate presentation of 
the evidence for the exilic date of this prophecy is its 
reading entire in the light of the true historical situa- 
tion. A few passages have been quoted which show 
this situation clearly. Further investigation may be 
left to the reader, v/hile we turn to another problem. 

It may seem difficult to account for the Book of 
Isaiah in its present form, if it actually contains writ- 
ings from several authors, the prophecies ranging from 
the year 740 B.C., the year of Isaiah's call, to 400 B.C., 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 251 

or perhaps even later. But it is not innpossible to 
show that the arrangement of the book does not create 
any serious difficulty. That the present distribution 
of the prophecies in the various prophetic books is late 
may be pretty conclusively demonstrated. In the Book 
of Jeremiah, for example, the order of the prophecies 
in the LXX. is very different from that in the He- 
brew. This shows that at about the year 200 B.C. the 
prophecies had not yet assumed a final order, in other 
words, the process of editing went on after that time. 

Further, it is clear that the present Book of Isaiah, 
like the present Book of Psalms, was made up by com- 
bining already existing smaller collections. To take 
a former example, we know that Jeremiah made the 
first collection of his prophecies twenty years after he 
began his prophetic career. We have the history of 
his writing in chap, xxxvi. But in the earlier chap- 
ters are many prophecies which belong to a later date 
than the fourth year of Jehoiakin. This shows that 
Jeremiah's prophecies were edited after he had made 
his first collection.^ 

We have the evidence for these smaller collections 
of Isaiah in the book itself — in the headings and in the 

* The year when Jeremiah wrote his prophecies was 604 B.C. 
But chap. xiii. belongs to 597 B.C.; xxi. i-io belongs to the last 
days of Zedekiah, who reigned 596-586 B.C.; xxiv. 27-29 belongs 
to the early part of the same reign ; xxx.-xxxiv. belongs to the days 
of the siege of Jerusalem, shortly before 586, 



252 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

arrangement. The heading to chap. i. states that this 
is the vision which Isaiah saw in the reigns of Uzziah, 
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. This covers the whole 
range of Isaiah's prophetic Hfe, but it was originally used 
as a heading for the collection, chaps, i.-xii., in which 
there are prophecies from all these years. The reign of 
Uzziah is deduced from vi. i, but incorrectly, because 
Isaiah was called in the year in which he died. But 
in ii. I we have another heading, briefer, and without 
date, which was originally the heading to a small col- 
lection of Isaiah's prophecies, probably ii -v., a head■^ 
ing which was not disturbed when chap. i. was 
prefixed. The heading to chap. vi. is suited only for 
that chapter ; but the chapter itself shows that it can^ 
not be here in its original place. Very hkely it was 
intended, as Cheyne says, for a suitable prologue to the 
prophecies uttered during the Syro-Ephraimitish war. 
At that time Isaiah had his first decided experience 
of the refusal of the people to hear. This experience 
impressed upon him the force of the inaugural vision 
which had been designed to teach him, among other 
things, that his message would not fall upon willing 
ears; but would, on the contrary, fix the rebellious 
purposes of a disobedient people. 

In chaps, xiii.-xxiii. there is a collection of prophe- 
cies which originally existed separately. The basis of 
the collection is the subject matter. Except chap, 
xxii., they all deal with foreign nations. The name of 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 253 

Isaiah, which we find in xiii. i, may have been intended 
by the late editor to cover the whole collection. 
Probably the original collection was a group of genu- 
ine Isaianic prophecies against foreign nations, to which 
additions of anonymous prophecies were made without 
an attempt to indicate which were actually Isaiah's. 
In this collection most of the sub-titles merely give the 
subject; as, " The oracle on Moab." But we find also 
the date ; as, *' In the year that King Ahaz died " (xiv. 
28). 

Another collection was xxiv.-xxxv., made up partly 
of Isaianic prophecies. There is a similarity of subject 
matter which is sufficient to explain the addition of 
later prophecies. Chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii. all deal with the 
overthrow of Assyria by Jehovah in the land of Judah. 
The other two sections, which have already been con- 
sidered at some length, xxiv.-xxvii., xxxiv.-xxxv., 
may have found a place here, because they, too, relate 
to the overthrow of the powers which were oppressive 
to God's people. The first large division of the Book 
of Isaiah, chaps, i.-xxxv., consists, therefore, of three 
smaller collections, each of which gradually grew into 
its present form. 

We may infer from this (as well as from other cases) 
that the prophecies of Isaiah were originally written 
and issued either separately or in very small collec- 
tions, and issued without the name of the author, be- 
cause the name would be unnecessary. To insure the 



254 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

preservation of these prophecies, they began to be 
collected in groups, with titles. There seems to have 
been no idea of incongruity in adding prophecies 
from other authors. The author was regarded as of little 
importance compared with the matter of the prophecy. 
Prophecies which promised the overthrow of Judah's 
enemies would naturally be brought together without 
much regard to authorship. So prophecies which 
promised the downfall of the mighty empires which 
threatened the very existence of Judah, namely, As- 
syria and Babylonia, would be placed side by side, even 
though their authors lived two centuries apart. 

If our interests were the same as the Jewish editors, 
we should find no embarrassment in this mixing of 
the products of quite different ages ; that is, if we 
were reading with a single eye to the future destiny 
of Israel, the origin of the oracle would signify com- 
paratively little. But if we read with a historical in- 
terest, the actual occasion of each prophecy becomes 
of great moment. We then require, as the basis of a 
proper understanding of the words, a comprehensive 
knowledge of the circumstances amidst which the 
prophet spoke. This is the great gain which modern 
criticism has made for the student of prophecy. 



CHAPTER IX. 



^be Booft of p0alm0* 

I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

THERE is no part of the Old Testament which 
has so deeply influenced the Christian heart 
as the Psalter. The great majority of people 
have read the Psalms simply for their spiritual nour- 
ishment. There is probably no critical student who be- 
comes so absorbed in the literary criticism of the Psalter 
as to be insensible to the revelation of spiritual truth 
contained therein. Many of the priceless gems lie on 
the surface ; others appear only as one enters into the 
life and soul of the writer. The greatest contribution 
which the Psalms can make to any age is the divine 
truths they reveal, the disclosures of the divinely 
enlightened human soul. This element of the Psalm 
Book is beyond the pale of literary criticism. No mat- 
ter what radical results may be attained or claimed, the 
spiritual truths cannot be touched by criticism. It is 
well to preface any critical study of the Psalter with 
this assurance. It sets the mind at ease to know 
that the soul's food cannot be disturbed. 



256 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

But why, then, study the Psalms critically ? Because 
critical study is the handmaid (but not the master) of 
devotional study; because the spiritual truths stand 
out more clearly as we comprehend the circumstances 
which gave rise to these outbreathings of earnest 
human souls. Some Hebrew poet sang his song, 
''The Lord is my Shepherd." Whether this poet was 
David or some other, we are sure he was one who 
understood Hebrew shepherd Hfe, and saw in that the 
relation of God to man. If we hope to grasp the 
force of the poet's metaphor, we, too, must under- 
stand the meaning of the life of a faithful Hebrew 
shepherd. 

The critical questions which are at present to the 
fore in the study of the Psalms are not those of 
analysis, but those of date. The extreme position on 
one side may be seen from a statement of Wellhausen 
that *' it is not a question whether there be any post- 
exilic Psalms, but, rather, whether the Psalms contain 
any poems written before the exile."* 

In his Bampton Lectures of 1889 (published in 1891) 
Cheyne said that "putting aside Psa. xviii., and possi- 
bly lines or verses imbedded here and there in later 
Psalms, the Psalter as a whole is post-exilic" (p. xxxi.). 
In his lectures delivered in America during the winter 

* Polychrome Bible, p. 163. Wellhausen held the same view at 
least as early as 1878, when he published his edition of Bleek's 
" Einleitung." 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 257 

of 1897-98,^ this distinguished scholar accepted the 
view that there are no Psahns of pre- exihc origin. 

Not many years ago Ewald was the greatest, and, 
at the time, among the most radical, of modern critics. 
But he assigned some fifty-seven Psalms to the pre- 
exilic period. Conservative as Driver usually is, he is 
surprisingly cautious in claiming a pre-exilic origin for 
any of the Psalms. The sixth edition of his Introduction 
(1897) shows few changes in the dating of the Psalms 
from the first (1891). He regards some fifteen as pre- 
sumably pre-exilic. He asserts, however, that ** it 
may be affirmed with tolerable confidence that very 
few of the Psalms are earlier than the seventh century 
B.C." Sanday is not much less guarded in his opinion ; 
he says: *' I cannot think that it has been at all proved 
that there was no psalmody in the first temple, . . . 
The plain inference that the Psalms addressed to a 
king belong to the times of the monarchy should not, 
I think, be resisted." t We find a more conservative 
opinion in one of the most recent works on the Psalter 
pubUshed in Germany by Prof. Baethgen, of Greif- 
swald (second edition, 1897). His opinion, as shown 
in his summary of his results, is that "■ of the 150 songs 
of our Psalter, some thirty to forty would have origi- 
nated in the time of the monarchy." 

The earliest Hebrew critics, a few centuries before 

* " Jewish Religious Life after the Exile," 1898, p. 124. 
t " Inspiration": Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 251. 



258 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

the Christian era, assigned seventy-three Psalms to 
David. The general tendency for a number of centu- 
ries after this was to increase this allotment. Rab- 
binic tradition assigned all the Psalms to David, and 
this theory was adopted largely in the Christian 
Church, so that "the Psalms of David" became a 
common title of the Psalter. 

The purpose of the student should be, not to 
attempt to prove or disprove any particular theory of 
the origin of the Psalter, but to use whatever means 
are at hand for ascertaining the real date of the vari-. 
ous Psalms. As the object of this book is rather to 
show methods than results, first we shall consider the 
means at our disposal for the determination of the 
date of the Psalms, and then apply those means to a 
few Psalms to show their practical application. 

The evidence which is available is both internal and 
external. The latter includes the evidence of the 
superscriptions or headings, and the growth of the 
Psalter in its parts and as a whole.* The internal 
evidence includes here, as elsewere, historical allusions, 
language, style, and ideas. The external evidence was 
once a controlling factor. But the headings have 
come to be generally discredited, and this evidence 
has fallen into disuse, if not into disrepute. Of late, 
however, one form of the external evidence has been 

* The evidence from New Testament usage has been considered 
in Chapter I., p. I9ff. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 259 

revived again, chiefly by the more radical scholars. In 
our treatment the external evidence will be consid- 
ered first. 

The Psalter is now frequently denominated '*the 
hymn-book of the second temple." Reuss strangely 
calls it '' the hymn-book of the synagogue."* Those 
critics who regard all the Psalms as the product of the 
exilic or post-exilic period lay considerable stress upon 
the fact that the collection was made for the temple of 
Zerubbabel. Thus Wellhausen, speaking of Psa. xx., 
says : '' It would seem that this Psalm (and, on the 
same grounds, the following) belongs to the days of the 
kingdom of Judah. This, however, would remove the 
two Psalms out of the sphere to which the Psalms, as 
a whole, belong" (Polychrome Bible, p. 171). This 
method of determining the date of individual Psalms 
does not seem to me wholly justifiable. No matter 
when the final collection was made, no matter to what 
sphere the Psalm Book, as a whole, belongs, it may 
contain portions whose origin antedated the collection 
by many centuries. Moreover, no one knows better 
than the eminent scholar quoted above, that the pres- 
ent collection of Psalms was the result of a growth 
which must have continued a long time.f 

* His title is " Der Psalter, oder das Gesangbuch der Syna- 
goge." 

t " Smend has accepted as an axiom, that the Psalter was the 
hymn-book of the second temple. But I venture to place beside 



26o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

That the present collection is made up of a number 
of smaller collections is an important part of the evi- 
dence for the late date of the whole, and this evidence 
must be briefly reviewed here. The Psalms are di- 
vided in the Hebrew Bible into five books. The basis 
of the division is not wholly scientific, but it shows 
that the Hebrew editors realized that the completed 
book was made up of previous smaller collections. 
The surest and simplest evidence of these minor col- 
lections is in the presence of duplicates. It will be 
sufficient to exhibit a single case of duplicationT For 
convenience of comparison the two Psalms are placed 
side by side. The points of difference are indicated in 
Psa. liii. by the use of italics, 

PSA. XIV. PSA. LIII. 

For the liturgy. Of David : For the liturgy. To the sickness^ 

Maskil of David : 
The fool says in his heart, The fool says in his heart, 

There is no God. There is no God. 

They have done a corrupt, They have done a corrupt and 
an abominable deed ; an abominable thing ; 

that, as a second axiom, that the Psalms had been made ready for 
the use of the community" (Steckhoven, quoted by Staerk, "Zeit- 
schrift fur die A. T. Wissenschaft," 1892, I., 147). Sanday says 
forcibly: "If we admit, as we may certainly admit, that the 
Psalter as we have it was ' the song book of the second temple,' 
it by no means follows that the individual Psalms were all composed 
in the period of the second temple " (Bampton Lectures, p. 251). See 
also Robertson, " The Poetry and the Religion of the Psalms." 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 



261 



There is none doing good. 

Jahveh looked from heaven 
upon the sons of men, 

To see if any does wisely, 

If any one is seeking God. 

All have turned aside, are 
wholly depraved ; 

There is none doing good, not 
even one. 

Do not all the doers of evil 
know — 

Eating my people as they eat 
bread. 

And upon Jahveh they do not 
call? 

There were they in great dis- 
may ; 

For God is in the righteous 
generation. 

Ye bring to shame the pur- 
pose of the lowly, 

That Jahveh shall be his 
refuge. 

Would that Israel's rescue 
were come from Zion. 

When Jahveh brings back the 
captivity of his people. 

Then should Jacob rejoice and 
Israel be glad. 



There is none doing good. 

6^^^ looked from heaven upon 
the sons of men, 

To see if any does wisel)'. 

If any one is seeking God. 

All of them have gone astray, 
are wholly depraved ; 

There is none doing good, not 
even one. 

Do not all the doers of evil 
know — 

Eating my people as they eat 
bread, 

And upon God they do not 
call? 

There were they in great dis- 
may. 

Where there was no dismay. 

For God scattered the bones of 
thy besiegers. 

Thou broughtest to shame. 

For God has cast them off. 

Would that Israel's rescue 
were come from Zion. 

When God brings back the 
captivity of his people. 

Then should Jacob rejoice and 
Israel be glad. 



No one can reasonably doubt that these are but two 
versions of the same original poem. But some of the 



262 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

variations are striking and suggestive. One heading 
has the additional information of the tune* to which 
the Psalm was to be sung, and of the character of the 
poem, a maskil, or wisdom song. In Psa. xiv. we find 
Jahveh four times, and God ('Elohim) three times; 
in Psa. liii. we have God seven times, and Jahveh not 
at all. If we look more closely we shall see that in 
Psa. xiv. Jahveh is used whenever the personal name 
of the Deity is required. We perceive then in these 
variations the work of two different editors, one of 
whom uses Jahveh as the name of the Deity, the other 
God ; and one of whom gives fuller information in his 
prefatory note than the other.f 

There is but one explanation of these facts. Just as 
we find ** Rock of Ages" in every collection of Chris- 
tian hymns, and as we often find variant texts accord- 
ing to the ideas of the editors, so this popular Hebrew 
song was gathered into two different collections, each 
made by an editor who did not scruple to modify the 
original song according to his own taste and sense of 

* This is at all events a highly probable explanation of the 'al 
jnahalatk. 

t Of the other variations, some are due to textual corruption, 
others to editorial intention. These are not material for the pur- 
pose in hand, and are therefore passed by. It may be well, how- 
ever, to emphasize the fact that wherever there are duplicates in 
the Old Testament — and the cases are numerous— there are many 
variants, and the two causes named above both have to be pre- 
supposed ; see further below. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 263 

propriety. There is another fact which strengthens 
this conclusion. If we examine the collections to 
which each of these Psalms belongs, we find that Psa. 
xiv. is among poems in which Jahveh is habitually used 
for God ; while Psa. liii. is among those in which 
'Elohim is employed."^ There were, therefore, Jah- 
vistic and Elohistic editors whose labors are still in 
evidence in the completed Psalm Book.f 

There are several other instances of duplication. Psa. 
xl. 13-17 (Book L), reappears as a complete Psalm (Psa. 
Ixx., Book II.), with a heading quite differejit from 
that of Psa. xl. Three times in Psa. Ixx. we find 'Elo- 
him corresponding to Jahveh in Psa. xl. Also Psa. 
xxxi. 1-3, is the same as Psa. Ixxi. 1-3. Psa. cviii. 
(Book V.) is made up of portions of two Psalms of 
Book III., Ivii. 7-1 1, and Ix. 5-12. Each of these 
Psalms has an elaborate heading ; but the editor, who 
made a. new Psalm by joining two choice bits from 
other poems, gave his production a heading of its own, 
though a very simple one, viz. : "A Song. A Psalm 

* Let the reader take the trouble to glance over (if indeed he 
have not already done so), the Psalms of Book I. (i.-xli.) to note 
the prevalence of Jahveh (Lord in the English versions), and then 
over Books IL and IIL (xlii.-lxxxix.) to see how 'Elohim (God in 
the English versions) predominates. One might read the Psalms 
a long time without discovering the meaning of this fact. 

t In many of these Psalms the divine name, whether Jahveh or 
'Elohim, may represent the preference of the author rather than 
of the editor. 



264 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

of David." It is plain from the evidence now produced 
that these headings are the work of editors, and that 
each editor exercised a good deal of latitude in the 
performance of his task. The headings are no part of 
the sacred text, but are introductory notes, and cer- 
tainly there could be no valid objection to the liberty 
exercised by the collectors. 

When these various original collections were joined 
together to make our present book, the Psalms must 
already have become too fixed to permit much further 
editing ; otherwise it is not likely that duplicates 
would have been retained. It seems highly probable, 
therefore, that the Book of Psalms took on its present 
form at a comparatively late day, and long after the 
separate collections had been made. This belief is 
strengthened by the fact that the Jahvistic and Elohis- 
tic editors, whose hand is so clearly traceable as collec- 
tors of Psalms, belonged to different schools of thought 
in the Jewish Church.* The bringing their productions 
together, therefore, indicates a step toward unity. 

The comparison of the duplicates throws much light 
on the state of the text. There are upwards of a hun- 
dred variations between the Hebrew texts of the du- 
plicate versions, Psa. xviii. and II. Sam. xxii., and many 
more in the Greek texts. If there are so many vari- 

* The meaning of the use of these names is discussed by Dr. J. 
P. Peters, in " The Development of the Psalter " New World, 
June, 1893. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 265 

ants where the text could be controlled by duplicates, 
all pointing to departures from the original in one or 
the other version, or both, then it is manifestly prob- 
able that there are still more departures from the 
original text where there was no check at all. 

The partial loss of acrostic forms is another evi- 
dence of the changes which have been made. Such 
changes may have been partly due to corruption, some 
clearly are explicable in only this way ; but others are 
just as certainly the work of the editors, who did not 
scruple to adapt a song so as in their judgment to 
make it more suited to the purpose in view. Sanday 
has stated clearly his idea of this adaptation : *' The 
fact that the Psalter was used in the temple services 
would naturally lead to a certain amount of adapta- 
tion. Many of the Psalms, we may be sure, were not 
originally written with this object. Some modification 
would be needed in order to fit the expression of pri- 
vate feeling for public worship ; and we can also well 
believe that ideas and allusions which sounded archaic 
and out of date would be modernized. Just as in our 
own hymn-books the form in which the hymn is act- 
ually sung often differs considerably from the original, 
so also in the Jewish Church the same thing would 
take place, but probably on a larger scale, because, as 
we have already said, all idea of literary property and 
of the obligations entailed by it was absent " ('' Inspira- 
tion," p. 195). 



266 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

In oraer to study the headings most profitably we 
must take up the Psalms by groups. The division into 
five books, as already indicated, is partly artificial. It 
is easy, however, to separate the Psalms into three 
parts, so that the division has a more logical basis, in 
that each once existed independently. These are : I., 
i.-xli. ; II., xlii.-lxxxix. ; III., xc.-cl. In these parts 
there are undoubtedly minor collections which existed 
as such before they became part of a larger collection. 
But for our purpose it is not necessary to go into the 
discussion of the smaller sub-divisions, the three main 
parts being the most convenient divisions. It is pro- 
posed both to state the facts, and to attempt briefly to 
show their meaning. 

Part I. Psalms i.-xli. In the Hebrew text there are 
but four anonymous Psalms in this part, i., ii., x., xxxiii. 
Psa. i, is introductory to the whole book. Psa, ii, is 
closely allied to it in date ; its Aramaic words betray 
its lateness, and its Messianic character is so all-per- 
vading that its apparent historical background might 
easily mislead ; at all events, the final editor did not 
regard it as part of the Davidic collection, of which 
this part is mainly composed. Psas. ix. and x. were 
originally one* ; hence the absence of a title from x. 

* The evidence of this is conclusive. In the LXX. these two 
constitute a single poem. The Psalm was originally an acrostic. 
Put it requires the two Psalms to get all the letters. It is true 
that some of the acrostic letters are lacking, especially in the latter 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 267 

The lack of a heading in Psa. xxxiii. is attributed by 
Wellhausen to its late introduction in this collection. 
Others have held that this song was originally a part 
of Psa. xxxii.* Baethgen says that ** very likely 'to 
David ' has fallen out [of the title] by accident " ('* Die 
Psalmen," p. 92). The LXX. has the title '* to David," 
the Hexaplar text adding, "without inscription by 
the Hebrews, and by the three." 

All the other Psalms of Part I. have the heading " to 
David," t so that this is essentially a Davidic collection. 

part. Enough survive, however, to show^ clearly the original form. 
Wellhausen's translation in the Polychrome Bible shows which let- 
ters are preserved. In that part in which the acrostic arrangement 
is lost, there are clear traces of textual corruption. I have found 
by experience that the elementary student finds no difficulty in 
reading this Psalm until he comes to the corrupt portion. 

*See Cheyne, Bampton Lectures, p. 214; Peters, New World, 
June, 1893, p. 294. 

t There is at least reasonable doubt whether the heading 
/e davidh indicates authorship or not. It is rendered in the Eng- 
lish versions " of David " ; but it means strictly to ox for David, and 
would most appropriately indicate the dedication of songs to the 
poet-king. But the Hebrew particle may indicate possession, and the 
fair critic will give to the conservative view the benefit of every doubt. 

Nevertheless, the preposition cannot indicate authorship in all 
the titles, as, for instance, in those '' to the sons of Korah." A 
certain doubt must, therefore, remain as to the actual intention of 
the editors. On this Vauctoris, see further, Baethgen, "Die 
Psalmen," p. vii.; Driver, L. O. T.«, p. 381 ; Zeitschrift f. d. A. T. 
Wissenschaft 1885, p. 66 f.; 1886, p. 267. 



268 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

There are, besides, in the headings, other notes of vari- 
ous kinds. Some are of a musical character, and thereby 
reveal their late date ; others indicate the supposed his- 
torical occasion of the Psalm,"^ the words often being 
taken from the historical books. The earliest Jewish 
higher critics deserve credit at least for perceiving the 
importance of knowing the historical setting of a Psalm, 
even if they were not very acute in determining it. 

If we turn now to the Greek Psalter, we find some 
interesting variants in the headings. They are, in fact, 
pretty numerous, but many are not important in this 
place. In one Greek manuscript Psa. ii. has the head- 
ing ^' to David"; several Psalms which have only " to 
David " in the Hebrew text, have '' Psalm to David " 
in the Greek. In some cases the Hexaplar text, or the 
Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion, 
lack the note '' to David." In other cases the Greek 
text gives the occasion of the poem where it is want- 
ing in the Hebrew. Thus Psa. xxiv. is '* for the Sab- 
bath day"; Psa. xxvii. was to be said "before anoint- 
ing oneself," indicating a ritual use; Psa. xxix., which 
is in reality a song whose motive is a thunder-storm, 
was to be sung *'on going out of the tabernacle"; in 
Psa. xxxi. we find **of a trance"; in Psa. xxxviii. the 
purpose is " for a recollection of the Sabbath. "f 

* There are such historical notes to Pss. iii., vii., xviii., xxx., 
xxxiv. 
t The Hebrew title, " a Psalm to David, to remember," breaks off 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE IV. 269 

From the above survey of the superscriptions in the 
first collection we observe that the headings were not 
definitely fixed by authority, but that the editors used 
a good deal of freedom. When the Greek version was 
made, not later than 100 B.C., there were still various 
texts of the Psalms differing in the titles as well as in 
the text ; for it is not likely that the Greek trans- 
lators did any editing ; they translated, sometimes 
with slavish literalness, sometimes with great free- 
dom, whatever was in the Hebrew text they used 
(see p. I77f). The Hebrew text, which was ulti- 
mately adopted as the standard, and which alone 
has come down to us, was more conservative in its 
higher criticism than the one employed by the Alex- 
andrian translators. This latter text contained many 
additions of late origin. We shall find additional 
evidence for these conclusions in the further examina- 
tion of headings. 

Part n. Psalms xlii.-lxxxix. In this part, as in the 
preceding, there are four anonymous Psalms, according 
to the Hebrew text, xHii., Ixvi., Ixvii., Ixxi. Of these 
xHii. belongs to xlii., the two being originally one 

abruptly, and is manifestly a fragment. The Greek title completes 
the sense, but is far from assigning an appropriate occasion, ac- 
cording to the contents of the poem. It may be, as Baethgen, 
among others, seems to hold, that the Hebrew title is complete, the 
reference being to the offering of the askara. The askara was a 
part of the vegetable offering called the niinchah. 



270 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Psalm.* Pss. Ixvi. and Ixvii. have headingsf from which 
the name of the author has dropped out. Psa. Ixxi. has 
no heading at all in Hebrew, but in the LXX. has 
this: '* To David. Of the sons of Jonadab, and of 
the first that were taken captive." Nineteen Psalms 
are assigned to David, the two small groups, li.-lxv., 
Ixviii.-lxx., and the dislocated Ixxxvi. To the sons of 
Korah:}: are ascribed eleven, viz.: xlii. (xliii.), xliv.-xlix., 
Ixxxiv., Ixxxv., Ixxxvii., Ixxxviii. To Asaph twelve 
are credited, viz.: 1., Ixxiii.-lxxxiii. Solomon is cred- 
ited with one, Ixxii., and Ethan the Ezrahite with 
one, Ixxxix. 

There are, therefore, three minor collections which 
make up this part, a Davidic, a Korahitic, and an 
Asaphic. When these were combined, the original 

* Psa. xliii. , in the present arrangement, is the third strophe of the 
poem, Psa. xlii. containing the first two strophes. Each of these 
three strophes ends with the same refrain (see xlii. 5, ii; xliii. 5). 
The subject, language and style show the unity of the Psalm, as 
well as the form. Dr. Peters supposes xliii. to be a later addition 
to the original Psalm {New World, June, 1893). 

t " For the liturgy. A song. A Psalm '' (Ixvi). " For the lit- 
urgy. With stringed instruments. A Psalm. A song" (Ixvii.). 

J"Korah and Asaph are not Psalmists, but families or guilds of the 
temple-singers. Hence the Psalms may have been attributed to 
them originally in just the same way that many German hymns 
are attributed to the Moravian Brethren: they belonged origi- 
nally to a private collection, and subsequently found their way into 
the common Hymn Book " (Wellhausen, Polychrome Bible, p. 182). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 271 

collections were somewhat broken up ; a Davidic 
Psalm (Ixxxvi.) was placed in the midst of a Korah- 
itic collection, and one Asaphic Psalm became dis- 
joined and was placed between Korahitic and Davidic 
groups. It is very likely that the two groups of Ko- 
rahitic and of Davidic Psalms which we find here once 
constituted independent collections, the present mix- 
ing up being due to the editor who joined the three 
collections into one. That the original collections 
had little meaning for the later Jewish editors is 
clearly seen from the fact that some Greek manu- 
scripts ascribe several of the Korahitic Psalms to 
David. ^ The desire of the late Jews to make David 
the author of as many Psalms as possible is clearly 
seen in the Greek headings. 

Another important fact to be noted here is the sub- 
scription or colophon to Psa. Ixxii., *' the prayers of 
David the son of Jesse are ended." In Part II, there 
is but one Davidic Psalm following this (Ixxxvi.); but 
of the two immediately preceding, one is assigned to 
Solomon and the other is anonymous. It is manifest 
that this subscription must originally have stood at 
the end of an exclusive Davidic collection, which must 
have existed independently before incorporation with 
others. Why then were these words transferred to 
tiie end of a Psalm attributed to Solomon? Cheyne 

* Codex Alex, ascribes xlii., xliii, xlv.-xlvii., 1. to David; Codex 
Sin. ascribes Ixxix. to David. 



272 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

explains it as a clerical error, " Psa. Ixxii. being a late 
appendix to the Davidic hymn book " (" Bampton Lec- 
tures," p. 8). Whether this explanation is sufficient or 
not, it is not easy to say ; but the fact shows conclu- 
sively that editors, or it may be scribes, were careless 
about consistency. 

A historical occasion is given for an unusual number 
of Psalms in this part, viz., li., Hi., liv., Ivi., Ivii., lix., 
Ix., Ixiii. The Greek version used in Origen's '' Hex- 
apla " lacks these historical notes. The LXX., on the 
other hand, adds to the title of Ixxvi. and Ixxx. " con- 
cerning the Assyrians," and presents a number of other 
variants of more or less importance. Psa. Ixxxviii., as 
already stated (p. 1 1), preserves even in the Hebrew 
text a double line of tradition, assigning the Psalm 
both to the sons of Korah and to Heman the Ezrahite. 
In like manner Psa. xxxix. has, along with the Davidic 
title, *'to Jeduthun." Jeduthun was the head of a guild 
of singers*, and he appears to be the same person as 
Ethan, t who is named as the author of Psa. Ixxxix. 

Part III. Psalms xc.-cl. The third part is character- 
ized by the large number of anonymous Psalms. In 
the more conservative Hebrew text the following are 
*' orphaned," as the Jews called those which have no 
author assigned to them : Pss. xci.-c, cii., civ.-cvii., 

* See I. Chron. xvi. 42 ; xxv. 1,3; II. Chron. xxxv. 15. 
t See Baethgen, " Die Psalmen," p. ix. ; Bertheau on I. Chron., 
vi. 29. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 273 

cxi.-cxxi., cxxiii.,cxxv.,cxxvi., cxxviii.-cxxx.,cxxxii., 
cxxxiv.-cxxxvii., cxlvi.-cl., forty-two in all. Authors 
are assigned to several of these in the more venture- 
some Greek text, as we shall see below. The Hebrew 
text ascribes these seventeen to David : Pss. ci., ciii., 
cviii.-cx., cxxii.,* cxxiv., cxxxi., cxxxiii., cxxxviii.- 
cxlv. The Greek text adds ten to the Davidic Psalms: 
Pss. xci., xciii.-xcix., civ., cxxxvii. This version as- 
signs cxlvi.-cxlviii. to Haggai and Zechariah.f In the 
Codex Alexandrinus and in the Hexaplar text, and 
in some MSS. of the LXX., Psa. cxxxviii. is ascribed 
to Zechariah as well as to David, and the Hexaplar 
text ascribes cxxxvii. to Jeremiah as well as to David. 
The Hebrew text assigns Psa. xc. to Moses, and Psa. 
cxxvii. to Solomon. J 

There are two groups of Psalms in this part which 
require mention. Psas. cxx.-cxxxiv. all have the head- 
ing " song of the goings up." Various explanations 
of the " goings up " have been given, the most probable 
referring the term to the pilgrimages to the holy city. 
If this is the right explanation, the pilgrim Psalter 
could not possibly be the production of David or of 

* Several Greek MSS. lack the title "to David " in cxxii., cxxiv., 
cxxxi., cxxxiii. 

t Psa. cxlvii. is divided into two Psalms in the LXX., and each part 
is assigned to the joint authorship of these two post-exilic prophets. 
Conversely Pss. cxiv. and cxv. are combined into one in the LXX. 

X The name of Solomon is lacking in the chief Greek MSS. 



274 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Solomon. The correct title of a single poem would be 
**a song of the going up." The plural suggests that 
the original title was "songs of the goings up." This 
would apply to the whole collection, and would be 
used as a single title for the whole. When the collec- 
tion of the songs of the pilgrimages was incorporated 
in the larger collection, the title of the whole was af- 
fixed to each Psalm to preserve its identity. This would 
explain the preservation of the plural ** goings."* 

There is another group made up of hallelujah songs, 
cvi., cxi.-cxiii., cxxxv., cxlvi.-cL; to these the LXXo 
adds, cv., cvii., cxiv.-cxix. These are, for the most 
part, songs of praise in a high strain. But the title is, 
to say the least, not equally applicable to all of them 
(see Cheyne, '' Bampton Lectures," p. 49fif.). 

We note further the general absence of historical 
notes to the Psalms in this part. The Hebrew text 
contains such a note only for Psa. cxlii.; the Greek text 
also for xcvi., xcvii., cxliii., cxliv. The liturgical 
direction is given for Psa. xcii., *' for the Sabbath 
day"; Psa. c. is called "a Psalm of thanksgiving," 
and Psa. cii. '* a prayer for the afflicted when he is 
helpless." The LXX. informs us that Psa. xciii, was to 
be sung *' on the day before the Sabbath," and Psa. 
xciv, " for the fourth day of the week." 

*See O. T. J. C.^ p. 203; Sanday, "Inspiration," p. 194; 
Cheyne, '• Bampton Lectures," p. 59; Baethgen, "Die Psalmen," 

p. XX. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 275 

In this part more than in the second, as in the second 
more than in the first, the original groups were broken 
up by the compiler, making it easily possible for late 
Psalms to be interspersed with earlier ones. There is 
in this part still more divergence between the Hebrew 
and the various Greek texts, a fact which shows that 
we have not only to consider the history of the Psalm 
Book, but of the various parts of which it is composed. 
The LXX. having, as we have seen, a slightly different 
arrangement of the numbers, comes to the end of the 
Psalter lacking one of the requisite 150. To supply 
this deficiency it was compelled to add a Psalm of un- 
certain origin, and of little value, to which the heading 
is prefixed : '* This is an idiographic Psalm to David 
(and it is beyond the number)', when he fought in sin- 
gle combat with Goliath." The Septuagint text, es- 
pecially in some of the MSS., claims several Psalms 
for David beyond those ascribed to him in the Hebrew. 
The Jews did not reach an agreement about this mat- 
ter in the pre-Christian period, the Greek-speaking 
Jews adhering to the Greek version, others to the He- 
brew. If, therefore, one is disposed to accept the 
headings on the ground of the authority of our Lord 
and of His Apostles, he should not be content, as is 
usually the case, with the more conservative Hebrew 
text, but should claim for David all those given by the 
Greek,* since this was the version generally supposed to 
* Some idea of the value of these titles may be had from noting 



276 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

have been used by Christ and His Apostles. There is 
no unanimously received tradition of the early criti- 
cism of the Psalter. The headings represent the criti- 
cal conjectures of the Jews of the post-exilic period, 
the conjectures becoming more extravagant up to a 
certain point, and then becoming more conservative ; 
therefore, it is impossible to claim any authority for 
them. Their worth must be tested in every case by 
determining the actual value of the opinion therein 
expressed. 

The array of facts given above must at least par- 
tially answer the question what these opinions are 
worth. There is further evidence that the titles in 
many cases are a growth, the result of successive edit- 
ing. This is readily seen from the variety of expres- 
sion. The ordinary order is Psalm, niaskil, or miktam, 
to David. The order often changes to to David, a 
Psalm. Often we find the duplicates a Psalm, a song; 
or reversed, a song, a Psalm. In such cases the second 
part is plainly an addition to the simple original title. 
The varying order may sometimes be due to the fact 
that the title of a whole group was given to each 
Psalm when it was broken up and placed in the larger 
collection. This title would naturally be placed at 
the end of such notes as already constituted headings. 
Still others might be subsequently added. 

the inconsistency in the Greek heading to Psa. xcvi. : ' ' When the 
house was built after the captivity. A song of David." 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 211 

But to determine conclusively the value of the Jew- 
ish criticism preserved in these titles, there are two 
questions which need to be answered: Upon what 
ground are these opinions based ? and, How far do they 
agree with the contents of the Psalms ? It is quite 
possible to find the answers to these questions in the 
headings themselves. The principle of one's work is 
usually traceable in the work itself. 

It is sometimes clear that the opinion expressed in 
the title is based purely upon the internal evidence, 
that is, upon the contents of the Psalms. Now it is 
clear that it is not possible to lay much stress upon 
external evidence, however ancient from our stand- 
point, if it in turn is based solely upon internal evidence. 
For we have the same internal evidence ourselves, and 
are much better qualified to use it scientifically than 
the post-exilic Jews. It is, for example, particularly 
easy to see why the two Psalms are ascribed to Solo- 
mon. 

Psalm Ixxii. begins : 

" O God, give thy justice to the king, 
And thy righteousness to the king's son. 
He will judge thy people with righteousness. 
And thy afflicted with justice." 

Who was the King's Son par excellence but the son 
of the great David ? Who was the famous judge upon 
the throne of Israel but Solomon the wise } There is 
little else in the poem that is appropriate to Solomon. 



27S THR OLD TESTAMMNT FROM 

It is Messianic throughout. The ideal king is the real 
subject of the poet's thought. Moreover, the king is not 
the speaker, but the subject of the poem, and so it could 
not have been written by any king. The most that can 
be claimed is that the Psalm was dedicated to Solomon. 
Psalm cxxvii. begins : 

" If Jahveh build not the house, 

Its builders labor thereon in vain. 

If Jahveh watch not the city, 

Its watchman is awake in vain." 

There seemed to the Jewish editor no one who could 
be this builder but Solomon. But the rest of the Psalm 
shows us clearly the post-exilic Jerusalem, and there- 
fore " the house " is the second temple. 

A good test of the worth of the superscriptions may be 
had by the examination of those which have historical 
notes purporting to give their occasion. A few specimens 
of these will be considered. The occasion of Psa. iii. is 
said to be *' when he fled from Absalom his son." But 
the enemies who are smitten by Jehovah are foreigners, 
and the singer rejoices in their downfall ; whereas 
David mourned so over Absalom's loss that Joab 
sharply rebuked him (II. Sam. xviii. 33ff.). The subject 
of Psa. vii. is *' concerning the words of Cush a Benja- 
mite."* We do not know anything about this Cush, 

* The Targum substitutes for Cush the Benjamite " Saul the 
son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin." The Greek texts and the 
Vulgate read, '• Cushi the son of Jemeni." 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE IV, S79 

and therefore cannot control the statement. This, 
however, does not prove that it is correct. Psa. xviii. 
is said to have been sung " on the day when Jahveh 
deUvered him from the hand of all his enemies, and 
from the hand of SauL""^ If one reads this Psalm care- 
fully, it will be perfectly clear that the deliverance for 
which Jehovah is praised happened in one particular 
battle, where the hero was hard pressed, and where 
Jehovah came to his rescue in a storm. The heading 
implies that the song was a general one, commemora- 
tive of deliverance in a long series of wars. One feels 
such an incongruity in coupling Saul with ''all his 
enemies," that, all the more if he held to the Davidic 
authorship, he would beheve that the clause, " and 
from the hand of Saul," must be a later addition. The 
last verse, moreover, shows that David could not have 
been the author ; for the poet ends his song: 
" Making great deliverance for his king, 

And showing mercy to his anointed ; 

To David and to his seed forever." 
A descendant of the Davidic house must be the sub- 
ject of this poem. Nor is the evidence for the Davidic 
authorship materially strengthened by the presence of 
this song in the history of David (II. Sam. xxii.) ; for 
the last chapters of II. Samuel are appendices added 
long after the history of David's times was composed. 

* This historical note is wanting in the Hexaplar text, and in 
the versions of Aquila and Symmachus. 



28o THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Psalm xxxiv. commemorates the time when David 
" distorted his sense before Abimelech, and he drove 
him out, and he went away." This statement is bor- 
rowed from I. Sam. xxi. 12, where, alone, we find the 
unusual words, Hterally rendered, '' distorted his sense." 
But the Gittite king who drove David away was Achish, 
not Abimelech.* There is nothing whatever in the 
Psalm suitable to this occasion. The poem dwells 
upon the favor which Jehovah shows to the right- 
eous, and the sure downfall of the wicked. The poem 
is, further, an acrostic, each verse beginning with 
a letter of the Hebrew alphabet ; that fact, as well as 
the theology, suggests that the Psalm is a late one. 

The reader has now before him, at all events, full 
specimens of the evidence which has caused all modern 
critics to discredit the testimony furnished in these 
headings. Those who prefixed them to the Psalms do 
not appear to have had any good evidence on which to 
base conclusions. If one still adheres to them as an 
authority, to be held at least until another is found, he 
must, nevertheless, respect the position of those who 
hold that they have no value save as specimens of the 
critical conjectures of an uncritical age. Nor must he 
charge modern critics with seeking out destructive 

*It is held by some that "Abimelech" is a title of Philistine 
kings, like Pharaoh or C^sar. But, as Baethgen has pointed out, 
"Abimelech " (Melech or Moloch is my father) is " a pure proper 
name." 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 281 

conclusions without regard to evidence, whereas evi- 
dence is just the thing, even if almost the only thing, 
which the modern critic is ready to heed. The estima- 
tion of the Psalm titles by modern scholars may be seen 
from a very few extracts. Wellhausen says: "It is now 
commonly recognized that the historical notices given 
in the titles do not contain genuine traditions" (Poly- 
chrome Bible, p. 163). *' It is clear that [the historical 
notices] are the fruit of the learned study of a younger 
age, which turned its industry upon the old national 
literature. . . . These historical notices in the super- 
scriptions are very untrustworthy."* ** But if the state- 
ments concerning the authors are so late, then in that 
case they have no critical value" (Baethgen). ''It is 
now generally agreed that the headings which have 
come down to us are of very little direct value. But 
indirectly their value may be considerable. In con- 
junction with other data they may enable us to deter- 
mine the succession of the different parts of the Psalter. 
They may give us a clue to the date of the editorial 
processes to which both whole and parts have been 
subject " (Sanday, " Inspiration," p. 194). '' The strong- 
est reasons exist for supposing that the historical 
notices are of late origin likewise, and though they 
may embody trustworthy information respecting the 
source or collection whence the Psalms were derived 
by one of the compilers of the book, that they contain 
* Reuss, " Das Alte Testament," v. 39, 41. 



282 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

no authentic tradition respecting the authorship of the 
Psalms, or the occasion on which they were composed" 
(Driver, L. O. T.^, p. 374). 

Before taking up the internal evidence formally it 
may be well to remark briefly on a delicate question 
which will not yet down for the mass of Christian peo- 
ple, even if it has for the critical student — Are there any 
Davidic Psalms? I can only say frankly that I am un- 
able to answer Yes, and am not, with my present light, 
willing to answer No. My reluctance is not due to 
hesitation to accept the demonstrated results of criti- 
cism, but to my uncertainty whether there may not be 
Davidic Psalms, or at all events fragments of Davidic 
Psalms, in the collection which the later ages looked 
upon as so surely a production of the Bethlehemite king. 

There are several points that must be taken into 
account in the forming of an opinion. The earliest 
germane testimony that we have is in Amos vi. 5, 
'* Like David they devise for themselves instruments 
of music." This shows that David was famed as an in- 
ventor of musical instruments ; but it is secular music, 
and not music of a godly kind, which is referred to by the 
prophet.* Moreover, the devising of these instruments 

* Robertson calls this interpretation the result of "a strangely 
perverted ingenuity of exegesis " (" Poetry and Religion of the 
Psalms," p. 108). I have read his book while my own was going 
through the press ; but I cannot see anything in his argument to 
justify a change in the statement above. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 283 

is mentioned as a reproach for the idle and luxurious 
Samaritans. Further, ancient testimony shows that 
David was a skilled player, but says nothing about his 
singing or composing (I. Sam. xvi. 18). Saul's evil 
spirit was charmed away, not by David's songs, but by 
his playing on the harp (ib.^ v. 23). Nevertheless, 
David was a poet. There are preserved in the books 
of Samuel two poems which are, beyond reasonable 
doubt, Davidic. These are the lament over Saul and 
Jonathan (II. Sam. i. 19-27), taken from the Book of 
Jashar, and the brief lament over Abner (ib.y iii. 33f.). 
There is another which may be David's, '' the last 
words of David" {ib., xxiii. 1-7), though the evidence 
is not so good for a poem contained in a late appendix. 
We have, therefore, early testimony to the fact that 
David was (i) an inventor of musical instruments, (2) 
a skilful player on the harp, (3) and a poet ; why then 
not a Psalmist ? Certainly there are a priori probabili- 
ties that this famous king was the author of at least 
some of the splendid lyrics which the post-exilic age so 
freely credited to him. 

But there are two chief obstacles which stand firmly 
in the way of the hopes these facts may raise. The Da- 
vidic poetry in Samuel is altogether unlike the poetry 
in the Psalms.* The lament over Saul and Jona- 

* No stress need here be laid upon the fact that the " Davidic " 
poems in the Psalter are of every variety of subject, style, lan- 
guage, theology, etc. 



284 I^HE OLD TESTAMENT. 

than offered a fine opportunity for the expression of 
religious emotion, but the poem expresses only human 
feelings. The assured Davidic poetry corresponds to 
his musical instruments in its secular character. This 
is the more remarkable because David was intensely 
religious. It is true that David is called in II. Sam. 
xxili. i: *' The sweet Psalmist of Israel " ; but the pas- 
sage is more obscure in the original than appears in the 
English. The above rendering (R. V.) is scarcely 
possible ; we might translate, "Lovely in the praise- 
songs of Israel," or " Lovely playing of Israel." The 
LXX renders, ** The goodly Psalms of Israel." These 
words, by the way, testify against the Davidic. author- 
ship of this poem. 

Then, again, it is difficult, with any degree of confi- 
dence, to assign the individual Psalms to David ; for 
the internal evidence rarely agrees with his date or his 
Hfe. Ewald assigned about a dozen Psalms, or parts 
of Psalms, to David ; but since his day the tendency of 
critical opinion has steadily been growing less favora- 
ble to the theory of Davidic authorship. 



CHAPTER X. 



ZTbe Booft of pealme* 

2. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 

WE have seen that the external evidence for 
the determination of the date of the Psalms 
does not offer much effective help. The 
view of some critical scholars, that since the Psalter 
was the hymn book of the second temple, the Psalms 
cannot belong to an earlier period than the exile, has 
not seemed justified. On the other hand, there do not 
seem to be good grounds for placing much confidence 
in the late traditions or conjectures found in the super- 
scriptions. There is left, therefore, only the internal 
evidence as our main reHance. 

But it must be confessed that the internal evidence 
is a delicate instrument, and, in incompetent or rash 
hands, it is liable to great abuse. In the hands of the 
judicious expert, however, a great deal of solid work 
may be accomplished with it. 

In this book but little use can be made of the evi- 
dence from language and style. Knowledge of the 
Hebrew tongue is essential to judge competently of that 



286 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

evidence. The linguistic expert must decide whether 
words and idioms are early or late ; for they all look 
ahke in a translation. Style is not altogether lost in 
translating ; but it is so seriously modified that its 
evidential value is greatly impaired. To furnish evi- 
dence appreciable to the reader who is not a Hebrew 
scholar, dependence must be placed chiefly upon his- 
torical allusions and theology ; and these, in fact, con- 
stitute the most important evidence for any one. 

In the case of the prophets, historical allusions are 
helps which rarely fail ; for the prophets were greatly 
concerned with the state of the nation in their day. In 
some Psalms also we find a connection with the times 
which solves the problem of date. In many cases, 
however, the Psalms are of a lyric character, and the 
writer makes no allusion to his times, at least none 
which helps us. So often the sacred poem is the out- 
pouring of the deep emotions of a struggling human 
soul, and the words are equally applicable to almost 
any period. This quality of the Psalms greatly hinders 
the critical determination of dates, but it has made the 
Psalm book the inexhaustible source of comfort for 
all souls in all ages. No matter what our need or our 
mood, it is not difficult to find a voice for its expres- 
sion in this priceless collection of religious poetry. 

The religious ideas, in which the Psalms so richly 
abound, must always be reckoned with. But God has 
not always put ideas into the souls of men in an or- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 287 

derly development, and it is easy to be over-confident 
in dating on such a basis. Ideas belong to eternity, 
not to time. On the other hand, every age is char- 
acterized by the peculiar way in which it expresses 
its ideas, by the effect which certain ideas produce, 
or by the emphasis which it lays upon those ideas 
which appeal to it most strongly. 

Enough has been said to show the value of the in- 
ternal evidence, and the necessary caution in employ- 
ing it. The mistake which some famous Biblical 
scholars are making to-day appears to be due to press- 
ing unduly the meagre evidence derived from the 
contents of the sacred writings. The internal evidence 
utterly fails to support the Davidic authorship of the 
Psalms, but this may be due to the defective charac- 
ter of the evidence.* The aim of the present chapter 
is, however, positive results. It is proposed to exam- 
ine the internal evidence by which certain Psalms may 
reasonably be assigned to the pre-exilic period, some 
to the Maccabean period, and others to the period 
between these wide limits. No attempt can be made 
to examine all the Psalms which presumably belong 
to any of these periods. For the pre-exilic period, 
we shall study two small groups of Psalms, in one of 
which the evidence is chiefly historical conditions, in 
the other religious ideas. 

* There may be Davidic Psalms which have been worked over, 
or added to, so that the evidence in the original is lost. 



288 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

I. The first group will be Psas. xx., xxi., and xlv., 
all referring to a king.* We must bear in mind that 
reference to a king is not a sure indication of the 
pre-exilic origin of a Psalm. The '' anointed " may be 
the people viewed as the holy nation of Jehovah, or it 
may be the individual Messiah, and therefore does not 
presuppose the monarchy as an existing institution. In 
every case we must decide whether the king is one 
actually sitting on the throne when the Psalm was 
written, or whether the poet idealizes from conditions 
of the past. The king seems to be real in the three 
Psalms we have chosen for investigation. 

I. Psalm XX. The Psalmist begins his prayer : 

" May Jahveh answer thee in the day of distress. 
May the name of Jacob's God support thee ; 
May he send thee aid from his sanctuary, 
And from Zion may he give thee relief " (vs. i, 2). 

This is evidently a prayer addressed to the person 
for whom divine aid is sought. That the person prayed 
for is a king appears from the following lines : 
" Now I know that Jahveh saves his anointed ; 
He will answer from his holy heavens. 
O Jahveh, save thou the king ; 
Yea, answer us on the day we call " \ (vs. 6, 9). 

*The others referring to the monarchy are ii., xviii., xxviii., Ixi., 
Ixiii., and Ixxii., and most of these are probably pre-exilic. The 
evidence is much stronger, however, in some cases than in others. 

f This verse is rendered according to the LXX. , which involves 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 289 

The king addressed could not possibly be the au- 
thor. The occasion is clear. The king is about to 
send his forces to the wars. Appropriate sacrifices 
and prayers have been offered. 

" May he remember all thy offerings, 
May he esteem fat thy burnt sacrifice. 
May he fulfil all thy requests " (vs. 3, 5). 

Jehovah is asked to send help from His sanctuary on 
Zion ; hence the Psalm could not be earlier than Solo- 
mon. But the king is a real one ; he offers sacrifices, 
and wins victories through Jehovah's support. It is 
certainly unnecessary, if not impossible, to idealize 
this poem. The natural inference is the true one, that 
it belongs to the time of the monarchy. It is not pos- 
sible to date it more closely. It may fall almost any- 
where between the age of Solomon and the Baby- 
lonian exile. 

There is nothing to indicate accurately the charac- 
ter of the enemies the Jewish king was to meet. Yet 
these lines — 

" Some by chariots, and some by horses, 

But we are exalted by the name of Jahveh our God " (v. 7) 

suggest that it was one of the great powers like Egypt 
or Assyria which Judah was to meet on unequal terms. 

a very slight emendation of the Hebrew text. This reading is 
adopted by Perowne, Cheyne, Baethgen, Wellhausen, Reuss, et al. 
" Save " is used here, as Cheyne says, in the sense of " give vic- 
tory to." 



igo THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

The Hebrews evidently had no armament to match 
that of their foes ; but they had a sublime confidence 
in a support which the enemy could not withstand. It 
is very probable that this king was one of those who 
rehed upon prophetic advice and divine aid, rather than 
upon intrigues and alliances. 

So far as the ideas of this deeply religious poet are 
concerned, while they are not sufficient to fix the date 
in the pre-exilic period, they are at all events not in- 
consistent with that date. 

2. Psalm xxi. This poem expresses the religious 
feelings and hopes of the king, and the favor which 
God has shown him ; it is therefore not probable that 
it was composed by a king. The monarch's chief joy 
is in the aid he receives from on high. 

" O Jahveh, the king rejoices in thy strength ; 
And in thy succor how he exults ! " (v. i). 

The poet pictures the prosperous career upon which 
Jehovah has started His anointed : 

" The desire of his heart thou hast granted him, 
The prayer of his lips thou hast not denied. 
Thou placest before him blessings of good, 
Thou settest for his head a crown of gold " (v. 2f.). 

The crown suggests that this may be a coronation 
hymn ; some have thought that the poem was com- 
posed for the annual coronation festival. That the 
crown was of fine gold creates no real difficulty ; the 



THE MODERN- POINT OF VIE W, iot 

LXX., however, reads, ''crown of precious stones"; 
but even if the Hebrew text is correct, the expression 
does not go beyond the proper bounds of poetic 
license. As Perowne suggests, the golden crown may 
be a figure for the prosperity described in the preced- 
ing line. 

There are two expressions in the following lines 
which have made many think a Messianic king to be 
intended : 

" He asked of thee life : thou hast given to him 
Length of days for ever and ever. 
Thou enduest him with blessings for ever, 
Thou exaltest him with joy in thy presence " (vs. 4, 6). 

Theodore of Mopsuestia saw in the answer to this 
prayer a plain reference to Hezekiah's lengthened life 
after his severe illness. It would be almost as difficult 
to explain the words '' for ever and ever " in the Jewish 
conception of the Messianic king as to regard them as 
a poetical expression for long life. The Hebrew saw 
himself perpetuated as long as his seed survived (cf. 
Psa. xviii. 50) ; hence to die childless, or to have one's 
posterity cut off, was the greatest of calamities. David's 
joy was unbounded because of the promise that his 
seed should sit upon the throne of Israel for ever (II. 
Sam. vii. 13). These words, therefore, afford no rea- 
son for resisting the clear inference that the poet v 
describing a real king. 

Moreover, the hope of the people does not centre 



292 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

in the king, as it would if he were the Messiah, but 
in Jehovah Himself. 

" For the king trusts in Jahveh, 
And by the mercy of the Most High he feels secure " (v. 7). 

It is Jehovah who will overthrow the foes that, in 
harassing His people, purpose evil against Him. 

*' Thy hand will find all thy enemies, 
Thy right hand will find thy haters. 
Thou wilt make them turn the back ; 
With thy bow thou wilt aim at their face " (vs. 8, r^). 

It is not to be doubted that an actual king is the 
subject of the poet's hopes and prayers ; but it is not 
possible to name the king, or the precise period to 
which he belongs. There is no hint as to the char- 
acter of the enemies whom God will overthrow. We 
can fix the date in the pre-exilic period, but must rest 
content with that. The various conjectures which 
have been made as to who this king actually was are 
largely fanciful. It is useless to try to go beyond the 
evidence. 

3. Psalm xlv. This is a royal marriage hymn, and, as 
Dr. Peters has said, *' the only secular poem in the 
Psalter." Cheyne, whose carefully wrought conclu- 
sions are never to be too lightly regarded, said in his 
"Bampton Lectures" (p. 166) that " the royal subject of 
the song is by no means King Messiah, as the Targum 
and most Jewish and early Christian interpreters sup- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 293 

posed, but some contemporary monarch." This mon- 
arch was in his opinion Ptolemy Philadelphus (285- 
247 B.C.). Later he has apparently accepted the in- 
terpretation of the Targum, and now regards the 
Psalm as purely Messianic. The problems for the stu- 
dent are to determine whether the king is real or ideal, 
and whether he is Jewish or foreign. Let us 
look at some of the expressions of the Korahite song, 
which Cheyne happily calls a prelude to the Song of 
Songs, to see what they most naturally mean. 

The poet feels powerfully moved by the splendor of 
his subject. 

" My heart is stirred with a goodly theme ; 
I am speaking now a work on the king " (v. i). 

Like all court poets, however much he may be 
moved by the spirit of God, he must sing the praises of 
the king. Let us hope that the author was no mere 
flatterer, but that his sovereign deserved this adulation. 
At all events, it is not unworthy that a patriot's love 
for his king should lead him to magnify his graces. 

" Thou art beautiful beyond the sons of men, 
Grace is poured forth from thy lips. 
Therefore God blesses thee for ever. 
Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O hero, 
Majesty and splendor are thine. 
Thy throne, O divinity,* is for ever and ever, 
The sceptre of thy rule is a sceptre of right " (vs. 2f., 6). 

* Some modern interpreters emend the text, reading "will 



294 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Exalted as the picture is in these and in the follow- 
ing verses describing the fragrant garments, handsome 
palaces, and charming music, it fits so perfectly an act- 
ually reigning king, that it seems quite impossible that 
the picture should be an ideal one. The literal sense 
is always to be assumed as the right one, whenever it 
may be accepted without violence. 

The Psalmist introduces the bride, not for herself, 
but for the further glorification of the king. 

" Daughters of kings are among thy dear ones ; 
On thy right hand stands the bride in gold of Ophir " (v. 9). 

The picture becomes very realistic as the poet thinks 
of the natural sadness of a maiden taken from her 
home, and called upon to endure the lonely seclusion 
of an Oriental palace. 

" Hear, daughter, yea, see and incline thy ear. 
Forget thy nation and thy father's household : 
That the king may long for thy beauty ; 
Since he is thy lord, submit thyself to him " (v. lof.). 

We learn now that the bride was a Phoenician prin- 
cess, though the text is not beyond question. The 
bridal procession indicates a real marriage. 

stand"; it is simpler to take 'Elohim as the title of the king. There 
are innumerable parallels for this title applied to absolute mon- 
archs. 'Elohim is sometimes used of a judge. (See Brown-Driver, 
" Hebrew Lexicon.") 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 295 

" O daughter of Tyre, 
The rich of the nation flatter thee with gifts. 
All glorious is the king's daughter, 
Her clothing is pearls* set in gold. 
In gaily colored robes she is brought to the king 
Virgins following her are her attendants ; 
Into thy presence they are ushered. 
They are led in with joy and gladness, 
They enter the palace of a king " (vs. 12-15). 

The closing lines are addressed to the king, not, as 
is often erroneously supposed, to the bride. From this 
union with the princess the poet looks for sons who 
shall uphold the dignity of the royal estate. 

" In the place of thy fathers there will be thy sons. 
Whom thou wilt make princes all through the land. 
I will make thy name famous in all ages. 
So nations will glorify thee forever" (v. i6f.). 

It strains language unnecessarily to interpret all 
these realistic details in a figurative way. There is 
certainly good ground for the behef that the poet is 
celebrating the nuptials of an actual king. But it is 
not so obvious, one must confess, that the king is Jew- 
ish, and hence of the pre-exilic period. The Psalm 
contains words which are of foreign origin, and unusual 
in Hebrew. They are not decisive, however, in favor 
of a late date. They might have been used in the 
northern kingdom at almost any time ; and in Judah 

*Following a slightly emended text accepted by most scholars. 



296 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

foreign words became quite common before the exile. 
There is one expression which points pretty clearly to 
an Israelite king, though Wellhausen does not admit 
the inference. In verse 7 the words *' God thy God " 
must have been originally " Jahveh thy God," the 
change being due to an Elohistic revision. This ex- 
pression could not, it seems to me, be used of a foreign 
king. Many suggestions have been made as to the 
precise person whose marriage inspired this song. 
Ahab, Jeroboam II., Joram, and in fact about every one 
known to have contracted a Phoenician marriage, have 
been named ; whence Baethgen says truly : '' This 
enumeration sufficiently shows that the Psalm offers no 
grounds for a certain dating" (*' Die Psalmen," p. 129). 

II. The group of Psalms, which may be referred to 
the pre-exilic period on the ground of their religious 
ideas, need not be discussed at much length. These are 
the anti-sacrificial Psalms, xl., 1., and li. The poets 
who sang these songs had learned the great truth that 
God's favor may be secured without the mediation of 
priest or sacrifice — a truth incessantly preached by the 
great prophets, but which the Hebrews as a people 
never fully grasped. 

We can look only at a few expressions, but these are 
so convincing that they are by many deemed sufficient. 

" With sacrifice and offering thou art not pleased, 
The ears hast thou opened for me, 
Burnt and sin offering thou dost not demand " (xl. 6). 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 297 

According to their favorite fashion, the people have 
entered into a covenant with Jehovah by solemn sac- 
rifices. 

" Gather to me my loved ones, 
Who made a covenant with sacrifice " (1. 5). 

But necessary as this seemed to the people, it was a 
matter of more than indifference to God. A spiritual 
offering was acceptable to Him. Obedience was better 
than sacrifice. 

" I rebuke thee not because of sacrifices : 
Thy burnt- offerings are ever before me. 
I will take no bullock from thy house. 
Nor he-goat from thy folds ; 
For all the beasts of the forest are mine, 
The cattle on a thousand hills. 
I know every bird of the mountains. 
The animals of the field are with me. 
Were I hungry, I need not tell thee ; 
For mine is the world and all therein. 
Can I eat the flesh of bulls "> 
Or drink the blood of goats ? 
Sacrifice to God a thanksgiving, 
And to the Most High pay thy vows. 
Yea, call on me in the day of distress, 
I will save thee, that thou hold me in honor" (1. 8-15). 

Psalm H. contains such profound conceptions of sin, 
that it could scarcely belong to early Hebrew thought, 
as Cheyne justly holds. But the Psalmist's conception 
of spiritual communion with God belongs peculiarly 



298 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

to the prophetic age. The great thing in this poem is 
the consciousness of sin. The Psalmist feels deeply 
that peace for his guilty soul can come only from God. 
How easy it would be to offer an appropriate sacrifice, 
and then persuade oneself that the debt were paid and 
the sin removed ! But this sin is not so lightly purged. 
The sufferer knows too well the harder requirements 
of a moral and spiritual God. 

" O Lord, open thou my lips, 
And my mouth shall show forth thy praise. 
For thou likest not sacrifice, or I would give it ; 
Burnt offerings give thee no pleasure. 
God's sacrifices are a broken spirit ; 
A heart broken and crushed God scorns not " (vs. 15-17). 

The closing verses of the Psalm are relied upon to 
place it in the exiHc period. They are altogether out 
of harmony with the ideas above quoted. 

*' Do good in thy pleasure to Zion, 
Build the walls of Jerusalem. 
Then thou canst delight in the appointed sacrifices, in the 

whole burnt- offerings ; 
Then will they sacrifice bullocks upon thy altar " (v. rSl). 

These words unmistakably betray the exilic or post- 
exilic period. But did so spiritual a poet reach at the 
end so poor a conclusion .'* It is much more likely that 
these verses are an addition, or two additions, perhaps: 
first, the bitter cry of the patriotic soul who, like Ne- 
hemiah, bewailed the poor estate of the holy city, and 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 299 

earnestly prayed for its restoration ; and then the 
promise of sacrifices, the natural consequence of the 
re-established altar, added by one who thought to make 
this favorite poem more orthodox from his own point 
of view. 

One need not deny that such spiritual conceptions 
were held by a saving remnant in the more ritual post- 
exilic age (cf. Zech. vii.,viii. and Malachi); but there is 
no place in which these ideas found such expression as 
in the prophets Amos, Isaiah and Jeremiah, as has 
already been shown at length in chap. v. There is, at 
least, therefore, reasonable ground for assigning these 
Psalms to the pre-exilic age, even if we cannot date 
them more precisely. 

III. So many Psalms have been assigned to the 
Maccabean age by recent critics, that it may seem un- 
necessarily sceptical to raise the question whether any 
can fairly be placed in so late a period,* or rather, 
whether any must be placed so late. Driver, in his 
revised '* Introduction" (p. sS/ff.) does not hesitate to 
ask that question, and is not very positive in his an- 
swer. But even conservative scholars, as Delitzch and 
Perowne,t hold that some belong to this age. If we 
believe that some critics have made this age too prolific 
of sacred poetry, it is still not necessary to deny to it al- 

* The Maccabean period begins at 168 B.C. 
t See their notes on Pss. xliv., Ixxiv., and Ixxix. Calvin also as- 
signed *hese Psalms to the Maccabean period. 



300 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

together a voice for its religious emotions. It must be 
simply a question of evidence. 

On historical grounds, Pss. xliv., Ixxiv., and Ixxix., as 
we shall presently see, fit the Maccabean age very well. 
But Robertson Smith (O. T. J. C, p. 20ifif.) raised the 
objection that if these Psalms belonged to so late a 
period they could not have found a place in Books II. 
and III. of the Psalter. Sanday is so much impressed 
with this argument, that he doubts whether any Psalms 
are of Maccabean origin. The point on which he lays 
stress is that the Greek version of the Psalter was 
made not later than iooB.C.,and that ''the number of 
steps implied between it and the original composition 
of the Hebrew Psalms is so great as to make it difid- 
cult to get them all into the interval."^ But our in- 
formation is not yet sufficient to reject a Maccabean 
date on ^/r/^r/ grounds. Each case must be consid- 
ered on its merits, to determine which we are obliged 
to fall back again upon the internal evidence. Our 
limits will not permit us to do more than make a 
cursory examination of the three Psalms named 



* " Inspiration," p. 257. See also, especially, his note on " The In- 
ferior Limits for the Date of the Psalter," p. 27off., where this able 
scholar traces the nine steps presupposed between the composition 
of a Psalm and the Greek translation. It does not follow, however, 
that all the steps were successive ; and it is very difficult to tell 
how long a time would be required to complete the various stages 
by which the Psalter reached its completed form. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 301 

above, and our purpose does not require more than 
this. 

1 . Psalm xliv. The pathetic note of this Psalm moves 
the dullest soul. The contrast between God's active 
aid to Israel in the olden days, and His seeming indif- 
ference now, is a riddle which this troubled poet can- 
not solve, except by that great power which for some 
happily solves all the problems of human life — faith in 
God. Let us quote a few lines to see how great the 
contrast is. The impression will be very strong that 
the poet looks back to the Conquest as if it were in the 
distant past. 

" We have heard with our ears, O God, 
Our fathers have told unto us, 
The deeds thou wroughtest in their days, 
In the days of yore. 

Thy own hand drove the nations out, and plantedst them ; 
Thou didst cut off the peoples, and send them away" (v. if.). 

The hopes such a history would naturally raise are 
dashed to pieces by facts. The pitiable condition of 
the present shows the low estate of the much tried 
people. 

" Now thou hast cast us off and brought us to shame ; 
Thou goest forth with our armies no more. 
Thou makest us turn the back to the foe, - 
And those that hate us make us their plunder. 
Thou settest us a butt among the nations, 
A wagging of the head among the peoples " (vs. 9f., 14). 



302 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

God's displeasure, and the withholding of His help- 
ing hand, had been easily interpretable to the prophets, 
because Israel was a disobedient people. Now, how- 
ever, this explanation will not serve ; for the nation as- 
serts righteousness of itself. 

" All this has befallen us, though we forgot thee not, 
Nor have we been false to thy covenant. 
Our heart did not turn away backward. 
Nor have our steps bent from thy way. 
For because of thee we are slain every day ; 
We are regarded as a flock to be killed " (vs. lyf., 22). 

When were the Jews in such a condition? When 
did they suffer martyrdom for their religion } So far 
as we know — and we have to confess much ignorance 
of the post-exilic period — there is no time so suitable 
as the Maccabean age. The persecutions which the 
Jews endured at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes 
(II. Mace. V. I iff.), form the best background for 
the due appreciation of this touching poem. 

2. Psalm Ixxiv. The condition of the Jews when 
this Psalm was written was bad in the extreme. It 
seemed as if God had given the enemy a free hand to 
work their evil will against His people. Let us read 
carefully this considerable extract, that the true condi- 
tion may be fully disclosed. 

" O God, why castest thou off forever ? 
Why burns thy wrath in the flock of thy feeding ? 
Remember thy congreg^ation ; thou gottest it of oM ; 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW, 303 

Thou didst redeem it as the tribe of thy inheritance, 

Mount Zion here, in which thou abidest. 

Set thy steps towards the eternal ruins — * 

All the enemy's harm in the sanctuary. 

Thy foes roared in thy very meeting-place ; 

They have set up their standards for signs, f 

They seemed like those swinging aloft 

Axes in the thickets of a forest. 

And now the whole of its carved wood | 

They smash with axes and hammers. 

They have set fire to thy sanctuary ; 

They desecrated to earth the abode of thy name. 

They said in their heart, Let us suppress them altogether ; jj 

They burned all the synagogues § in the land. 

" We see no signs, for we have no prophet, 
We have none that knows how long. IF 

* The LXX. reads, "Lift thy hands against their eternal contempt." 

t Codices Vat. and Alex, lack this line. 

\ 5a, 6^ are rendered in the LXX., " As in a thick wood, they 
have cut down its doors with axes." Wellhausen regards the text 
of vs. 5 and 6 as " hopelessly corrupt and quite untranslatable." 

II I have given Cheyne's rendering, involving a change of text vir- 
tually the same as Wellhausen's. The Hebrew has "their race 
altogether"; though supported by the LXX., this has to be re- 
jected, as it does not make sense. It is certain that the passage 
must state what the enemy says. 

§ Literally, " AH of God's meeting-places." This can only refer 
to the synagogues ; for, except the temple, God had no other meet- 
ing-place. 

^ The LXX., by omitting one Hebrew word, gives a good read- 
ing: " There is yet no one to make us know," 



304 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

O God, how long shall the foe scofif ? 

Shall the enemy scorn thy name forever ? 

Why boldest thou back thy hand ? 

Why keep thy right hand in thy bosom? "* (vs. i-ii). 

The holy temple on Mount Zion is not burned to 
the ground, as it was by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C.; 
but its adornments have been violently broken, it has 
been profaned, and fire has contributed its part to 
make the place seem like an eternal ruin. The syna- 
gogues everywhere have been completely destroyed by 
fire. The foe exulted in the violence they did to the 
sajcred things of the God of Israel, and there was no 
ominous handwriting on the wall to stay them. The 
suffering Jews saw no " signs'' indicative of God's in- 
tervention ; there was no longer a prophet to tell them 
when the end would be. They knew what God had 
done in the past, and what He was doing in the natural 
world at present (vs. 17-23) ; but it was hard to 
understand why He endured the contempt of the ruth- 
less foes, and why He permitted His people to bear such 
shame (18-23). The Jews were persecuted for their 
religion, not punished as rebellious subjects. 

* The LXX. renders this line, " And thy right hand from thy 
bosom forever ?" The Hebrew text contains a slight error. The 
parallelism shows that "consume,' 'as Revised Version translates, 
is wrong. The generally accepted rendering given above emends 
the text by changing a single letter, an emendation often required 
elsewhere. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 305 

This poet evidently was no idealist. He did not at- 
tempt to represent things according to his preconcep- 
tions. He sets forth a *' condition, not a theory." The 
facts are painfully real to him, and for their explanation 
he knows he must wait. He indulges in no imaginative 
exaltation of the weak Jews over their mighty enemies. 
The latter have the upper hand too completely for that ; 
and this Psalmist is too truthful to facts for that. 

Where are we to look for the scenes which prompted 
this sad picture ? Let us glance at the conditions in 
the Maccabean period, at least at a few of its features. 
The pious were then much perplexed because there 
was no prophet to guide them (I. Mace. iv. 46, ix. 
27, xiv. 41). Their sacred treasures were then vio- 
lated : "And the king [Antiochus Epiphanes] sent 
letters by messengers to Jerusalem and to the cities 
of Judah, that they should proceed after the customs 
foreign to the land, and should prevent burnt offerings, 
and sacrifices, and drink offerings at the sanctuary ; 
and should profane the Sabbath and sacred festivals, 
and defile the holy place and holy persons ; that they 
should rebuild high places, and sacred precincts, and 
images, and should sacrifice swine and unclean ani- 
mals, and should cause their sons to go uncircum- 
cised " {id,, I. 44ff.). Much mischief was done to the 
temple: "Behold our sanctuary was laid waste, and 
the altar defiled ; and the gates were burned, and in 
the courts trees were grown as in a wood, or as in one 



3o6 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

of the mountains, and the priests' chambers were torn 
down."* There were no synagogues until the post- 
exilic period ; but we surely find them mentioned in I. 
Mace. iii. 46: *' We assembled and went to Mizpeh, over 
against Jerusalem, for a place of prayer was at Miz- 
peh." 

The correspondence is certainly close. There is no 
other known period which this Psalm fits. If histori- 
cal allusions are to be given their due weight, we can- 
not hesitate to refer this Psalm to the period of the 
persecutions of Antiochus. 

3. Psalm Ixxix. This is so much like Psa. Ixxiv. that 
we shall not be in error in assigning it to the same 
period, whatever that may be. We need do no more, 
then, than point out the conditions which prompted 
this poem. 

The heathen enemies had defiled the temple and dev- 
astated Jerusalem ; they had slain the Jews and left 
their bodies unburied (vs. i, 2). The people of God 
had become the scorn of the heathen (v. 4); the nation 
was sadly reduced, and the means of living i^^N (v./f.). 
Prisoners sighed in the dungeons, awaiting the time of 
their execution (v. 11). 

IV. But three more Psalms can be examined. We 
will look at those which point to the exile in Babylon 

* I, Mace. iv. 38 ; cf. the Greek rendering of v. 6. of the 
Psalm, note J, p. 303. See also II. Mace. i. 18, viii. 33. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, ^oj 

or later. It needs no critical training to see that such 
a song as Psa. cxxxvii. sprang from the conditions of 
the exile. That this pathetic poem was written out of 
the experiences of one who had but lately endured the 
sorrows of exile from the holy land, is obvious from 
the most cursory reading. But in the case of others 
the date is not so evident. The cases are selected ac- 
cording to the general purpose to show method rather 
than results. 

I. Psalm iv. The subject of this poem is either the 
righteous nation or the righteous Israehte. He speaks 
in a time when one could base his expectation of suc- 
cor on his belief in his own righteousness (v. 3). His 
righteousness is of the law, the only kind which it is pos- 
sible for any discerning man to credit himself with. The 
standard of the pre-exilic age was that of the prophets, 
a moral standard, going back in its fundamental concep- 
tions to the Decalogue and to Moses. In that period 
there is no " righteous nation." The prophets judge Is- 
rael to be a sinful people, not because they have failed to 
offer sacrifice, but because they have stolen, murdered, 
and committed adultery ; and the stain of these is not 
removable with the blood ot bulls and of goats. The 
post-exilic ideal, on the other hand, was the ceremo- 
nial law.* The Israelite was to present offerings at the 

*One cannot be too careful to guard against confusing the origin 
01 priestly institutions with their ascendancy as the national ideal. 
Priest and sacrifice belong to early Israel as truly as to late ; but 



3o8 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

temple according to a carefully drawn system. Incom- 
pliance with the code he was to find his righteousness. 
Sin was now atoned for by the blood of bulls and of 
goats. The prescribed rites, elaborate as they were, 
could easily be kept, and the. keeping implanted in the 
people a sense of righteousness which had never before 
been possible. There is no surer indication of the post- 
exilic age of a Psalm than the assertion of righteous- 
ness. 

When this poem (Psa. iv.) was written the temple 
was in full use, and the people are called upon *'to sac- 
rifice the prescribed sacrifices."* It is an age when 
scepticism is common (v. 6); against this the pious au- 
thor protests in faith and hope. 

The Psalm cannot be placed in the pre-exilic age. 
The reference to the temple and sacrifice, and the idea 
of righteousness, all point to the post-exilic period, but 
give no more precise indication of date.f 

the ritual system became the national religion only in the post-ex- 
ilic age, when the voice of prophecy was faint or silent. This may, 
indeed, be a return to conditions which prevailed in the pre- Mo- 
saic age. It is likely that sacrifice was at all times a large element 
in the popular religion. 

* V. 5. The rendering of the English versions, *' the sacrifice of 
righteousness," is misleading ; this poet had no conception of spir- 
itual sacrifice. The word rendered, " of righteousness " (sedeq), 
has elsewhere the sense of right or prescribed, e.g., Psa. li. 19, 
where I have translated appointed (p. 298). 

f Cheyne assigns this Psalm to " the period when faithful Israel- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 309 

2. Psalm xxii. This is a Messianic Psalm pre-emi- 
nently ; but we may nevertheless seek to understand 
the conditions out of which the picture of the Messiah 
grew. The Christian approaches the study of the 
Psalm with peculiar reverence ; for it contains the 
words that fell to the lips of our blessed Lord to ex- 
press His emotions at the dark hour of His Passion, 
Could anything else more convincingly show its truly 
Messianic character? The ground on which the critic 
may seek to find a date for this Psalm is the obvious 
one that every writing has a date which is of interest to 
mankind, and that God opens the eyes of His servants, 
in chief part it may well be by the influence of the 
Holy Spirit, but also in no inconsiderable measure by 
the circumstances amidst which their life is cast. How 
could any Jew have ever conceived the vicarious suf- 
fering of the Messiah except he had known the martyr- 
life and death which gave the suggestion for Isa. hii.? 
It required both the vision on the housetop and the 
falling of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius to open St. 
Peter's eyes to the fact that ** God was no respecter of 
persons " (Acts x.). 

The sufferer feels that God has abandoned him ; he 
cries night and day to Heaven, but there is no answer. 
In time past prayer always brought a response, need 
always brought help. But how can God be expected 

ites were so sorely oppressed, both by traitors in their midst and 
by their Persian tyrants" (" Bampton Lectures," p. 227). 



3 TO THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

to help one who is " a worm, and not a man," re- 
proached, despised, laughed at, and ridiculed ? (v. 6f.). 
But there is no other help than the God " upon whom 
he had been cast from the womb " (v. lo). As this dis- 
tressed soul feels that God alone could help, so he 
knows no God but Jehovah. And help is sorely 
needed. Like bulls of Bashan, like raging lions, the 
enemy besets him. The sufferer is reduced in body and 
soul ; his bones may be counted ; his garments even 
are taken by his persecutors. 

Then a more triumphant note is sounded. Can we 
ever forget that the same suffering Saviour who said, 
*' My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" said 
also, '' Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit "? 
This Psalm could not be so truly Messianic if it had 
ended in the gloom with which it began. The tone of 
exaltation and triumph is a necessary part of the com- 
plete picture. God '* has not despised nor abhorred 
the distress of the lowly, nor hid his face from him " 
(v. 24). 

Driver says this Psalm belongs '* to the exile or 
later " (L. O. T.% p. 386). Ewald assigns it to the 
early part of the exilic period. Cheyne refers it to the 
time just before Nehemiah, when *'the remnant of the 
captivity there in the province are in great affliction 
and reproach " ('' Bampton Lectures," p. 231). The dis- 
appointed hopes, the broken hearts of the pious, in the 
early years of the Restoration, form the most suitable 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 311 

background for this Psalm. The ideas are in good 
accord with this date, and that was the time when 
Israel was taught the great lesson that suffering was 
not a mark of God's disfavor. Would that they had 
made better use of that lesson ! 

3. Psalm xlii.(-xliii.). That these were originally one 
has already been shown (chap. ix.). Ewald put these 
words into the mouth of Jehoiachin when he was car- 
ried away to Babylon. If we cannot be so exact in 
assigning a date, we may still be sure that Ewald was 
not far wrong. The opening words — 

" As the hart pants for the water brooks, 
So, O God, pants my soul for thee " — 

reveal clearly one who felt like David, that to be away 
from the holy land was to be away from God. "When 
may I come and behold the face of God ? "* is a ques- 
tion meaning the same thing as, ''When may I again 
visit the holy city?" The captors taunted their vic- 
tim with his vain hope of help from his God. The 
captive recalls, with mingled pleasure and pain, the 
days when he had gone with the happy throng of 
worshippers. He hopes surely to return to the altar, 
there again to offer his praises to God. Therefore, 
the Psalm must belong to the first Judean captivity 

* The later Jews, to whom the idea of seeing God was intolera- 
ble, changed the meaning of the word rendered " behold " by 
pointing the text to read, " When may I come and appear before 
God ? " 



312 THE OLD TESTAMENT, 

(597-586 B.C.), or else to the period after the rebuild- 
ing of the temple by Zerubbabel (515 B.C.). It is not 
easy to decide between these dates, though the earlier 
seems to me the more probable. 

Whatever opinion one may hold as to the reasona- 
bleness of the conclusions here reached, he must not 
forget that the religious value of the Psalms is not 
lessened by literary criticism. Psa. xxii. has precisely 
the same Messianic significance, and carries to the soul 
the same lessons, whether it was written by David, as 
the Jewish critics asserted, or by one who had a deeper 
experience of life, and a profounder conception of re- 
ligion than was possible for the king, whose reign was 
too full of wars and blood to make it seemly that he 
should be the builder of the temple. Only a larger 
knowledge and a sounder faith can come to one who 
studies the Psalter critically, in order that he and others 
may have its spiritual lessons set in clearer light. 
And that is the purpose of the critical study of the 
Psalms. Prof. Frants Buhl, of Denmark, has well 
said: "There [in regard to the Psalms] the Church 
has every reason to be thankful for recent researches, 
for they have made the rehgious content of those songs 
much more clear, and have made it much more easy 
for us to apply them to ourselves devotionally than 
was the case before " {American Journal of Theology, 
October, 1898, p, 764). 



CHAPTER XI. 
Criticiem ant) tbe SupernaturaL 

IT is hoped that it has been made clear in the course 
of the critical discussions in the preceding chap- 
ters that such investigation does not and can not 
impair the religious value and influence of the Old 
Testament. It remains to consider the effect of criti- 
cal results on the presence of the supernatural gener- 
ally. For the most serious indictment of modern crit- 
icism is that it robs the Old Testament of the super- 
natural. If a conviction could be had on this count, it 
would be a grave matter; but a conviction has not yet 
been secured, and never can be, for criticism does not 
attempt such a disastrous result, and would fail if it 
did. The criticism which has laid its hands on the 
supernatural is not the literary or higher, but the sci- 
entific. With this we have here no concern. It is left 
where it belongs, in the able and willing hands of the 
theologians. 

What do we mean by the supernatural in the Old 
Testament ? To some this means miracles, the signs 
and wonders in which the IsraeHtes delighted when 
they were given as proofs that the one who wrought 



314 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

them spoke as the messenger of Jehovah. The Nile 
turned into blood, the sweeping of the waters from the 
Sea and from the Jordan, the ascent of the angel of 
Jehovah in the fire, the standing still of the sun and 
moon, the translation of Enoch and Elijah, the turning 
back of the sun-dial, Jonah's living in the belly of the 
great fish, the speaking of Jehovah and of His angels 
to men, the ability of prophets to foretell future events 
— it is in such phenomena as these that the Christian 
world, like the Jewish, has been wont to see the pres- 
ence of God. 

But this conception of the supernatural is not the 
teaching of the Church Catholic, nor of that branch of 
the same to which it is my privilege to belong. The 
faith of the Church is expressed in those simple but 
comprehensive words of the Nicene Creed, "Who spake 
by the prophets." We must remember that prophets, 
in the sense of the term in the Creed, were back of the 
law, the history, the wisdom, and the poetry of the 
Scriptures, as well as of the prophets in the narrower 
sense. This doctrine is not a lax one, framed so that 
anybody can hold it; it admits of a larger belief in in- 
spiration than the elaborate definitions which have been 
much in vogue. Any further definition of this state- 
ment is apt to limit the possible area of belief. The 
Church has wisely given to her children the liberty to 
believe largely, and it is wrong to interpret this into a 
liberty to deny. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 315 

If we wish to keep in strict harmony with the Creed, 
therefore, as I for one most certainly do, and still de- 
sire to find the supernatural in the Old Testament, as 
I again surely do, it is not the signs and wonders upon 
which we shall fix our faith. The doctrine of the Creed 
is that in the voice of prophecy we have the voice of a 
man truly, but we have also the voice of the Holy 
Ghost. I have given ten years to the study of the Old 
Testament ; I have read many critical works; I have in- 
vestigated many problems myself; I may have earned 
the — to many — odious title of higher critic; but I have 
never yet seen any reason to doubt that in the many 
voices which are heard throughout the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, all the way from Genesis to Malachi, it was pos- 
sible to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit; or, I should 
rather say, it was impossible not to hear it. 

Likewise, if we wish to keep in harmony with the 
teaching of Jesus Christ, it is not by the signs and won- 
ders that we shall attempt to live. The parable of 
Dives and Lazarus teaches some wholesome lessons on 
this subject. The craving of the human soul for a 
ground of certitude which God has not seen fit to give 
is shown in Dives, in that he feels so confident that his 
five brothers, who had rejected Moses and the prophets, 
or at least found them insufficient, could not help be- 
lieving and reforming if one went to them from the 
dead. Just so, many seem to hold that one cannot be- 
lieve that the Lord is his shepherd unless he holds 



3i6 TBE OLD TESTAMENT PROM 

David to be the author of the words ; or that Christ 
died for him, unless he believes that Jonah lived three 
days in the belly of the great fish. But the teac-hing- 
of Jesus is plain: ''If they hear not Moses and the 
prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rise from 
the dead" (St. Luke xvi. 31). If the moral and spir- 
itual truths of the Bible, which surely are of God, do 
not take vital hold of the human soul, there is no use 
in trying to bolster up a weak faith by signs and won- 
ders. Jesus steadily refused to meet the demand for 
signs. When His persecutors said they would beheve 
in Him if He came down from the cross, He knew how 
weak was the faith built upon such a foundation. He 
preferred the faith of those who could believe even 
though He remained on the cross to the bitter end. 

Few peoples have ever laid more stress upon the 
value of signs and wonders than the Hebrews. In the 
days of the Maccabees we have seen how they deplored 
the lack of the signs which to them clearly indicated the 
presence of God. The Jews of a later day demanded 
signs of Jesus as proof that He was the Christ. But 
there were Hebrews who saw how easily one could be 
led astray if he relied upon signs and wonders. Here 
is a passage which should be carefully considered in con- 
nection with the apologetic value of signs: '' If there 
arise in thy midst a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and 
he give unto thee a sign or a wonder ; and if the sign 
and the wonder shall happen which he foretold [literally 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 317 

*' said "] to thee when he said, Let us go after other gods 
(whom thou knowest not) and serve them; thou shalt 
not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer 
of dreams ; for Jahveh your Goal/is testing you, to know 
whether you love Jahveh your God with all your heart 
and with all your soul" (Deut. xiii. iff.). 

Little comment is needed on so clear a statement. 
The Israelite was not to accept the evidence of a sign 
or wonder, even if worked by a prophet of God, when it 
would lead away from his reHgious duty. There was a 
higher evidence than any sign. There were some 
things so fundamental that signs and wonders could 
not affect them. Then signs and wonders can have 
little, if any, apologetic value; for if one is accepted, all 
must be. It is illogical to call those vahd which lead 
in the direction we would take anyway, and to call 
others snares of the devil. The fact is, a sign is of lit- 
tle use unless supported by the higher evidence of the 
moral sense. 

In my opinion, too hard a line has been drawn be- 
tween what are called the natural and the supernatural. 
For millions of years God has made the sun appear to 
revolve around the earth ; can we withhold admiration 
of those who, knowing no other God, worshipped the 
sun ? But this is called natural by us, and it goes as a ' 
matter of course. Once the sun appeared to halt for 
a season, and this is called supernatural, a stupendous 
miracle which must compel faith in the one who be- 



3i3 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

holds it. For myself, the evidence of God is infinitely- 
stronger in the wonderful regular motions of the heav- 
enl}^ bodies than in the temporary alteration of any 
part of the system. For I do not believe the earth 
could run its course in the heavens for a single day 
without God, any more than I could live, move and 
have my being except in Him. The part such gems 
as Psalms viii. and xix. have had in the development 
of this faith is not, I think, inconsiderable. The blade 
of grass shoots from the earth, the flower buds and 
blooms, the leaf bursts forth on the tree ; but not 
without the ever acting power of God. What saith 
the Scriptures? 

*' He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, 
And herb for the service of man, 
O Lord, how manifold are thy works ! 
In wisdom hast thou made them all ; 
The earth is full of thy riches " (Psa. civ. 14, 24). 

Shall we not lay the foundations for a richer faith if 
we substitute for this term supernatural the term 
God ? Then we may consider whether it is possible to 
accept the results of the critical investigation of the Old 
Testament and at the same time believe that we find 
God in that book. As long as we find the presence of 
God, we find all that the Creed has ventured to assert 
as fact, and we shall find all that is essential to a liv- 
ing faith. Moreover, our house will be founded upon 
a rock. The storm of criticism may rage, whether it 



THE MODERN POINT OE VIEW, 3I9 

be higher or lower, scientific or philosophical, but it 
cannot harm our faith. The destructive forces which 
God is ever letting loose in the world have this benef- 
icent effect ; they destroy the structures which are 
built upon the sand. The weak are perpetually going 
to the wall. It is not pleasant for the weak, but God 
destines us to be strong, and so hardly do we learn our 
lessons, that many sacrifices are necessary to teach us 
the difference between the rocks and the sand. 

We shall see that modern criticism has been destruc- 
tive of some of the signs of the supernatural in the 
Old Testament ; but I think we shall as clearly see 
that it has not been destructive of the supernatural 
itself, that is in the sense of the Creed. It has caused 
a change of opinion in regard to the presence of signs 
and wonders, but not in the presence of God, even in 
the very places from which the signs and wonders have 
been taken away. Four phases of the supernatu- 
ral may now each be briefly considered under the cap- 
tions of miracles, prophecy, revelation and inspiration. 

I. Miracles. No literary critic of the Old Testa- 
ment begins his work on the basis of the agnostic 
dictum that miracles do not happen. Per se miracles 
in the Old Testament are not a stumbling block ; if 
they are historically attested, as the miracles of our 
Lord are, they are readily accepted. The difficulty 
about many of them is that they lack historical attes- 



320 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

tation. Even when they have this they are not always 
free from other grounds of difficulty. 

The sign which was given to Moses as an assurance 
that he was sent of God to redeem Israel from the 
Egyptian bondage was the rod which turned into a 
serpent ; but the magicians of Egypt also cast down 
their rods and they too became serpents (Ex. vii. 12). 
Likewise these magicians turned the water into blood 
(vii. 22), brought frogs over the land of Egypt (viii. 7), 
and according to the correct text, they brought lice 
upon Egypt (viii. 18).* 

But whether these signs of Moses transcend the 
powers of man or not, the fact remains that God was 
working through Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt. 
We should be careful not to confuse the presence of 
God in this redemptive work with the supernatural 
character of the signs employed by His agent. 

Sometimes miracles are assumed where a strict 
exegesis does not admit them. Nowhere did Israel 
see more plainly the helping hand of God than in the 
passage of the Red Sea ; and they were not mistaken. 
But it is well to realize the exact character of that de- 
liverance. There are two accounts of the drying up 

* The words " but they could not " are probably an interpola- 
tion. It is a striking fact that the performance of these signs by 
the magicians is described only in the latest Pentateuchal source. 
There would probably be more of it but that this source fails us 
for the later signs. 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 321 

of the sea. We will satisfy ourselves with the oldest 
one, though the later is not seriously inconsistent with 
it. '' And Jahveh caused the sea to go all the night 
by a mighty east wind, and he made the sea into dry 
land" (Ex. xiv. 21). Though God moved the waters 
from the sea by what we call a natural agency, rather 
than by a simple fiat, it was none the less God to 
whom the sons of Israel owed their preservation. 

Criticism comes into conflict with the signs and 
wonders chiefly in the consideration of the character 
of the literature in which they are recorded. The 
question about the miracles of Elijah and Elisha 
should be considered chiefly on the ground of the 
character of the literature. It is generally held now 
that the stories of these prophets are not historical, 
but legendary, containing much historical matter, but 
still not pure history. Driver says of the Elisha stories: 
'* These narratives no doubt exhibit the traditions re- 
specting Elisha as they were current in prophetic cir- 
cles in the ninth to eighth century B.C.; their imme- 
diate source may have been a work narrating anecdotes 
from the life of Elisha (and perhaps from the lives of 
other prophets as well)" (L. O. T.^ p. 196). In these 
traditions we may believe a large admixture of legend 
to survive, but the stories contain their rich lessons 
just the same, and we cannot doubt that these proph- 
ets conveyed God's message to the people of their age. 
Elijah's steadfastness to Jehovah in the face of bitter, 



322 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

unrelenting persecution, even in the time when he mis- 
takenly seemed to be the only Jehovah worshipper left, 
was the great lesson for Israel and for us. 

The story of Joshua's great battle at Beth-horon is 
a good illustration of the way in which the higher 
criticism may correct long prevalent ideas of the pres- 
ence of the supernatural. Much has been written about 
this famous incident, a large amount dealing with 
the conflict between science and a long received inter- 
pretation of a passage of Scripture. Let our purpose 
be to find first the actual statement of the Scriptures, 
neither putting in nor taking out, and then the true 
exegesis of the passage. 

The unexpected surrender of the Gibeonites was 
followed by a formidable alliance of the five kings of 
Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. 
Their immediate purpose was to chastise the Gibeon- 
ites for their surrender, or to force them to stand out 
against the invaders. Joshua heard of the plight of 
his subjects, and by a hard, all night march was ready 
to attack the confederates at dawn. Very few of the 
details of the battle have been preserved. But it ap- 
pears that the intrepid leader was anxious to crush the 
alliance at one blow. He pressed them hard in pur- 
suit, and the forces of nature worked on his side in the 
conflict; for we are told that '' Jahveh cast upon them 
great stones from heaven," and then, lest succeeding 
ages should put a fanciful interpretation upon the writ- 



THE MODERN' POINT OF VIEW. 323 

er's words, he explains : ** Those who died by the hail- 
stones were more than those whom the Israelites slew 
with the sword " (Josh. x. Ii). 

In the earliest source, from which the account of 
this battle is mainly derived, there is quoted a frag- 
ment of an ancient poem which is taken from the Book 
of Jashar, There is only this little in the way of intro- 
duction in the early source, ''and he said in the eyes 
of Israel." Joshua is the speaker, and the little poem 
which follows appears to be a prayer : 

" Sun, stand still on Gibeon ! 
And moon in the vale of Aijalon ! 
And still was the sun and standing the moon, 
Till a nation took vengeance on its foes " (Josh. x. 12^, 13a). 

We should have no difficulty in understanding this if 
we read poetry as poetry, and not as prose. But, un- 
fortunately, there is a pretty ancient example of the 
turning of this poetic flight into sober prose. For the 
passage continues: ** And the sun stood in the midst 
of the heavens, and hasted not to set about a whole 
day. And there was not the like of that day before or 
after, for Jahveh's hearing the voice of a man " (v. I3f.). 
The latter passage is the writer's comment on the 
poem he has quoted.* Though his sense of poetical 
language may not have been acute, he has put his fin- 

* This is Sayce's view : " The prose historian seems to have taken 
them [the words of the poem] literally " (** Early History of the He- 
brews," p. 257). 



324 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

ger upon the real thing that made that day greater 
than any before or since, God's hearing the cry of a 
man, and giving a prompt and effective response. 
Joshua's fear was that darkness would come upon him 
before the rout of his enemies was complete. If the 
day would only hold out, the allies would be disposed 
of utterly. This situation explains his prayer. God's 
answer was the hailstorm which wrought such havoc 
among the enemy. The day was made long by inten- 
sion rather than by extension. In the Song of Debo- 
rah we read that "the stars in their courses fought 
against Sisera." Put into prose, this means that the 
forces of the natural world, in God's providence, aided 
Israel in the combat. No one has thought of intro- 
ducing a miracle to explain this. Why should we in 
the other case ? 

The Book of Jonah affords a good example of a sim^ 
ilar kind. Of late years this little book has been much 
discussed. But undue attention has been given to 
the question whether the prophet was swallowed by 
the great fish or not. This has tended to obscure the 
great lessons of the book. The consideration of this 
book should begin with the question whether it is his- 
tory or a story told for the lesson it contains, like the 
parables of our Lord. The aim of the author might 
have been to record certain historical facts; to teach 
certain truths in the form of a story with a moral; or 
to relate such historic facts as would illustrate or em- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 325 

body the lesson he has in mind. The Hebrew histo- 
rians, as has already been shown, were not wont to 
write history for itself, but for the lessons it taught; 
and so they wrote it in such a way as best to teach the 
lessons. 

The first alternative is the least probable. The his- 
toric facts of themselves would be of little value. There 
are some statements which are against all probability, 
as the statement respecting the size of Nineveh, the 
inappropriateness of the prayer spoken in the belly of 
the fish; and the didactic purpose is too obvious to be 
only incidental. The second alternative is probable 
enough inherently. Jesus Christ certainly invented 
stories to embody the truths He could best teach in 
that way. A distinguishing characteristic of His para- 
bles is, indeed, their naturalness, their conformity to 
probabiHty. Yet in the parable of Dives and Lazarus 
we can hardly suppose Him to be giving an exact de- 
scription of the conditions of life in Heaven. It would 
be hard to lie in torments and see our acquaint- 
ance in the bosom of Abraham, and it would be 
infinitely harder to repose in that bosom and see our 
friends in torments, it being impossible for us to mois- 
ten their burning lips with cool water. These things 
are apart from the lesson our Lord was teaching, 
which was not the conditions of life in the future 
world, but the terms on which we may attain the bosom 
of Abraham. Yet Jesus does not in so many words 



326. THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

inform us that His parables are but the clothing made 
for His purpose. Such a disclosure was not necessary; 
one can easily perceive this for himself. There were 
parables in the Old Testament, too. Might not the 
story of Jonah be such on a larger scale than usual? 

The third alternative appears to me the most plaus- 
ible. There is probably some historical background 
for the story which the writer has used freely as best fit- 
ted his purpose. It is not easy to separate the history 
from the legend; and it is not necessary here,, because 
that is apart from the purpose of the book. If a 
writer elaborates a few historic facts into a didactic 
story, it is evident that he has little concern with a 
distinction between the original and the borrowed. 
The facts to him are of a different character. 

The book of Jonah was written to teach two great 
truths ; that when God commands one of His prophets 
to prophesy, he must do it whether he will or not; and . 
that God had a message for Assyria as well as for 
Israel. The story is necessary to convey these truths, 
but it is not a part of them. They are just as true, no 
matter what the character of the literature in which 
they are found. Amos said that he preached to Israel, 
not because he was a prophet, but because God com- 
manded him to leave his herd and carry the message to 
the doomed people. Jeremiah determined to quit his 
office ; he was weary of crying disaster and ruin to 
people who persecuted him for his pains. But he dis- 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 327 

covered that he could not stop. God had put a mes- 
sage in his soul, and it would come out, if it had to burn 
its way. Jonah was commanded to proclaim in Nine- 
veh that it would be destroyed in forty days. He would 
have been eager enough to be the bearer of this tid- 
ings, if he could expect his prophecy to be fulfilled. But 
he knew that God was gracious, full of compassion, 
slow to anger, plenteous in mercy, and repentant of 
the evil (Jon. iv. 2). Look at the startling fact. The 
message which God gave to Jonah was inconsistent 
with God's character. Therefore, the prophet knew it 
would not be fulfilled, and he would not deliver it. He 
wanted Nineveh destroyed, as what Jew did not? — and 
would be no party to its salvation. 

As if to put himself out of the way of temptation to 
obey, he is represented as taking ship for the furthest 
known point in the opposite direction to Nineveh. But 
"" not so could he escape God. A mighty storm raged on 
the Mediterranean. The sailors worked bravely; they 
cast the cargo into the sea ; they rowed hard to get 
back to land ; but the storm only raged the more, in 
defiance of their vain efforts. Then they cast out the 
one who had been quietly sleeping in the innermost 
part of the ship, who had been quick enough to 
see that the storm was on his account. The big fish 
(there is no mention of a whale) was the means de- 
vised to bring Jonah back to his home port. Jonah 
obeyed the divine command the second time it was 



328 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

given, though not with the best of grace, and his dis- 
appointment was great as he perceived that God was 
true to His merciful character rather than to the exact 
tenor of the prophet's words. 

There is a miracle in this book, but it is not in the 
swallowing of the prophet by the fish and his preser- 
vation in its belly. In f.ict, a defender of the historical 
character of the book has given a purely naturalistic 
interpretation to this event. Perowne, in the Cambridge 
Bible, states that there is a species of shark in the 
Mediterranean which has a gullet large enough to 
swallow a man (the whale has not); that, in fact, a man 
was once swallowed by one of these creatures ; that 
he was rescued from his perilous position ; and that he 
afterward travelled about exhibiting the carcass of the 
shark. If this is so, the supernatural character of this 
story must be sought elsewhere. And it is not difficult 
to find. 

Jonah, it is true, shows very little sympathy for the 
gracious purposes of God ; but the writer of the book 
has grasped the comprehensive character of God's 
grace. That God should have put such an idea into 
the mind of a Jew so effectively is a greater miracle 
than any conceivable in the natural world. The author 
of this book was himself a prophet in the truest sense, 
and we cannot doubt that the Holy Ghost spake by 
him. The implanting of this truth in the soul of a 
Jew is all the more remarkable in view of the late date 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 329 

at which this book was most probably written. For the 
composition of the book is assigned to the fourth cen- 
tury B.C. ; in an age when the exclusive spirit of the 
Jews so fostered by Ezra and Nehemiah was pre- 
dominant, and when the Jews were such severe suf- 
ferers from the tyranny of foreigners that they could 
scarcely be expected to be very soHcitous for their 
welfare. The late date of the book makes all the more 
forcible the truth it contains. The sohtary voice 
lifted in protest against the narrow national spirit 
of the age is another case of a *' root out of a dry 
ground" (Isa. liii. 2). It is well to emphasize the gain 
on the religious side which comes from the modern 
view of a late authorship ; for there is a very persist- 
ent notion abroad that to refer a sacred writing to a 
late date is to lessen, if not to destroy, its religious 
importance. We have already seen the gain from the 
assignment of the Priest-code to a post-exilic date 
(p. 156). 

II. Prophecy. So much has been well written about 
the apologetic value of prophecy from the modern 
point of view that the subject may be briefly treated 
here. The negative conclusions that prediction was 
not the purpose of Hebrew prophecy, and that many 
predictions have not been fulfilled at all, and others 
only in part, are easily estabUshed by any one with a 
moderate amount of investigation. The function of 



330 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

the prophet was not that of a wizard, to foretell the 
future, but that of a God-sent preacher of righteous- 
ness, whose mission was to turn the people from their 
sins. The book of Jonah affords a good illustration. 
Jonah was apparently directed simply to make a spe- 
cific prediction to the Ninevites. But he saw that the 
very purpose of his prediction was that its fulfilment 
should not be necessary. God's object was, by threat 
of punishment, to turn those people from their wicked- 
ness. The fulfilment or non-fulfilment was in their 
Oivn hands. The same is true everywhere in prophecy. 
The same gracious object is everywhere visible. The 
future is pictured as full of disaster that the people 
may repent, and the realization of the picture there- 
fore impossible. Or it is pictured with glowing colors 
that the people may be stimulated to a life that will 
make the fulfilment possible. As the people were never 
as good as the prophetic ideals, there never were such 
eras as the prophets depicted. The people were as bad 
as the prophets represented them, perhaps worse, and 
so the greatest calamity on the prophetic horizon, the 
Babylonian captivity, became an accomplished fact. 

The delicate question connected with this subject is, 
however. Messianic prophecy. In the older apolo- 
getics the fulfilment of prophecies in the life of Jesus 
Christ was one of the strong proofs of His divinity. 
But this proof had always its weak side, and it is well 
that modern apologetics approaches the subject in a 



THE MODERN- POINT OF VIE W. 331 

different way. Not that Messianic prophecy does not 
have an apologetic value; for this is not lessened, if it is 
of a different kind. But we must believe in Jesus Christ 
on the ground of His life, His teaching, and the impres- 
sion He has produced upon the world as the only One 
through whom man may receive salvation from sin, not 
on the ground that prophets foresaw and foretold certain 
things about Him some centuries before His advent. 

We may illustrate from a classic prophecy. The 
deepest study of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah leaves 
it still very hard to answer the searching question of 
Candace's eunuch, " Of whom speaketh the prophet 
this? of himself, or of some other ?" (Acts viii. 34) ; 
but it makes it easy for us, like Philip, to begin from 
this Scripture and preach Jesus. One may find it diffi- 
cult to tell whether that prophecy is written purely 
with reference to one who is to come in the future, or 
whether it is based on the experience of one who, like 
Hosea, has learned priceless lessons from the sad ex- 
perience of his life ; but he should not find it difficult 
to see that it is Messianic above almost any other 
prophecy, because it portrays the very spirit of the life 
of the Messiah. The apologetic value is not in the 
prediction, for it is possible that there is no prediction 
here ; but it is in the preparing by the Spirit of God 
for the coming of a vicarious Sufferer whose mission in 
the world would be accomplished even though the 
world crucified Him, 



332 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

Many features in the Messianic conception of the 
prophets are not found in the life of Jesus Christ. 
From this we may draw the simple inference that the 
prophets were not wholly enlightened as to the future. 
The veil which a merciful Providence has drawn in front 
of us was only partly lifted to the inspired prophet. 
But, as Sanday has well said, ** As in other parts of 
prophecy, the fulfilment surpassed the anticipation " 
(''Inspiration", p. 219). We may apply this statement 
widely. If the prophets failed to portray adequately 
the Messiah, it is because their conception is far below 
the reality. The person of Christ stands far above any 
Old Testament forecast. If there is anything which 
makes Messianic prophecy seem poor and meagre, it is 
the comparison with the Messiah Himself. 

III. Revelation. It is necessary to distinguish care- 
fully between revelation and inspiration. One might 
be a channel of revelation without being inspired, or 
be inspired without being a channel of revelation. 
Revelation and literary criticism have little relation to 
each other, except as the former may be connected 
with the character of Biblical literature. But reve- 
lation does not always stand or fall with the character 
of an ancient writing. If the story of Abraham's offer- 
ing of Isaac is historical in the strictest sense, there 
was an objective revelation. It was first revealed to 
Abraham that he should offer his son and then that he 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 333 

should not, and the purpose of the event was the prov- 
ing of the patriarch's obedience. But modern thought 
finds great difficulties in supposing that the clearest 
revelation came at the beginning and then became 
more obscure. But it is not doubted that Abraham 
had a real revelation of God's will.. The patriarch, in 
accord with the ideas of his time, might well have be- 
lieved that human sacrifice was the most acceptable 
offering to God. But his only son bound upon a pile 
opened his eyes not only to see the ram caught in the 
thicket by his horns, but also to perceive that God 
would not have a man give his " firstborn for his trans- 
gression, the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul." 
That was the revelation to Abraham, and criticism, so 
far from attempting to take it away, has only made it 
the more clear. 

The greatest revelation came through the prophets 
of the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. The more 
one studies the rehgion which they taught the people 
in comparison with the popular cult, the more he will 
feel pressing upon him the question, '' Whence came 
the ideas which they gave to the world T The ques- 
tion presses the more for answer as we realize that the 
prophets did not voice the common sentiments of their 
time. Jeremiah was persecuted as a heretic ; the mass 
of the prophets and priests tried to silence his voice. 
As Bruce has put it, " They were men whose back was 
at the wall fighting against heavy odds, . , . They 



334 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

were in a hopeless minority" ("Apologetics," p. 190). 
They were not fanatics, delighting to run counter to 
the cherished conceptions of their time, and loving the 
glory of martyrdom. Elijah prayed that he might die 
and give up the useless struggle ; but he wanted to die 
alone in the wilderness, not at the public stake. 

Renan has attempted to explain the high prophetic 
ideal as due to the Semitic genius for religion, espe- 
cially in the tendency of this race toward monotheism. 
But this explanation may easily exaggerate the Semitic 
tendency; and it leaves unexplained why this full de- 
velopment was left for a small body of Hebrew proph- 
ets late in Semitic life — for recent researches have 
shown that the eighth century B.C. was late in common 
Semitic history. The facts which all will admit can 
only be explained on the assumption that the Nicene 
Creed speaks correctly. The Spirit of God spoke by 
these prophets ; they had a genuine revelation to com- 
municate to the world. 

If God must be assumed as the source of the pro- 
phetic message, it must be evident that this explana- 
tion is absolutely independent of any results of the 
higher criticism. Isa. xl.-lxvi. was written by a proph- 
et, or by prophets, of the exilic period. Isaiah, the 
son of Amos, was not the only channel of prophetic 
revelation. There is no reason to suppose that every 
utterance, even of this greatest of the prophets, con- 
t?iined a revelation from Heaven, In the exile God 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W, 335 

found souls through whom His will could be made 
known to the world. There is a great truth revealed 
in the fifty- third chapter of that book. The servant of 
God may suffer for the sins of others, his life may be 
lived in obscurity and affliction, he may be misunder- 
stood and martyred ; this truth is just the same whether 
it was revealed through the son of Amoz or through 
the unknown evangelical prophet who bore with his 
fellows the pains of enforced residence on foreign soil. 
The fact is, revelation is a subject which belongs to the- 
ology. The character of the revelation depends in 
some cases upon the character of the literature. The 
latter is a question for the literary critic ; the other is 
a question for the theologian. But the results of criti- 
cism can never make it impossible or improbable that 
the revelation in the Old Testament is genuine. It 
will often, on the contrary, make it more intelligi- 
ble, and, therefore, more probable. 

IV. Inspiration. Finally, we come to the funda- 
mental fact that God put it into the hearts of the 
prophets to speak to Israel. To what particular age 
any Old Testament writing belongs, to what particular 
author, whether it is a unit or composite, whether it is 
history, poetry, or parable, are matters to which the 
Christian faith is rightly indifferent, because these 
things are not vital. But that these writings are not 
the productions of man unaided by the Holy Spirit, is 



336 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

justly regarded as essential to the faith. So far the 
higher criticism of the Old Testament has not attempted 
even to call in question the inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures ; nor is there any sign on the distant horizon even 
that it has any purpose to do so. In fact, inspiration is 
entirely out of the range of higher critical investi- 
gation. If a higher critic question a doctrine, in- 
spiration, or any other, he must do so by coming 
out of the sphere of criticism and entering that of 
theology. 

The proper attitude of the critic is stated by Ott- 
ley in his recent Bampton Lectures : " I proceed to 
mention another truth presupposed in these lectures, 
namely, the fact of the inspiration of the Scriptures."* 
Driver speaks in the same spirit: "Criticism in the 
hands of Christian scholars does not banish or destroy 
the inspiration of the Old Testament ; \\. presupposes it; 
it seeks only to determine the conditions under which it 
operates, and the literary forms through which it man- 
ifests itself, and it thus helps us to frame truer concep- 
tions of the methods which it has pleased God to em- 
ploy in revealing Himself to His ancient people of 
Israel, and in preparing the way for the fuller manifes- 
tation of Himself in Christ Jesus" (L.O.T.^ p. xiii.). 
Briggs has said somewhere that if he knew anything 
about criticism, the Pentateuch was not written by 

* " Aspects of the Old Testament," p. 22, 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 337 

Moses ; but that if he knew anything- about inspiration, 
the Pentateuch was inspired. 

Prof. Sanday has done a valuable service by 
treating of the doctrine of inspiration from the point of 
view of a conservative modern critic. It will not be 
amiss to quote a passage which shows what his idea of 
inspiration is : *' Just as one particular branch of one 
particular stock was chosen to be in a general sense 
the recipient of a clearer revelation than was vouch- 
safed to others, so within that branch certain individ- 
uals were chosen to have their hearts and minds 
moved in a manner more penetrating and more effec- 
tive than their fellows, with the result that their writ- 
ten words convey to us truths about the nature of God 
and His dealings with man which other writings do 
not convey with equal fulness, power, and purity. 
We say that this special moving is due to the action 
upon those hearts and minds of the Holy Spirit. And we 
call that action Inspiration " (*' Bampton Lectures," p. 
127). Evidently the author has not found any difficulty 
in holding to inspiration and criticism at the same time. 

Ottley has recently uttered some wise words on this 
subject. A few passages may be quoted : " Inspira- 
tion means a divine action on man's faculties by which 
his intellect is continually trained to more intelligent 
apprehension of divine purposes, his conscience to 
deeper knowledge of moral requirement, his heart to 
worthier love, his will to more exact response. 



338 THE OLD TESTAMENT FROM 

** Let us inquire wherein the inspiration of the Bibli- 
cal writers consists ? Chiefly, it would seem, in a gift 
of special moral and religious insight. The inspired 
writer is one who is spiritually enlightened. . . . 
Next we should bear in mind that inspiration in its 
primary sense does not properly describe the character 
of a sacred book, but rather denotes the living action 
of God on the faculties of men. ... It would be 
perilous to attempt any formal definition [of inspira- 
tion], . . . We should certainly define at the expense 
of overlooking some vital element of divine truth " 
(" Bampton Lectures," p. 23ff.). Many in all the Chris- 
tian ages have attempted elaborate definitions of in- 
spiration ; but their definitions, even when given the 
authority of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, have rarely out- 
lived the age in which they were produced. The Creed 
which has survived, and is vital to-day, contents itself 
with the assertion of the fact of inspiration. 

Christians who have accepted the results of modern 
criticism then, still believe in inspiration, and they do 
not see any inconsistency in their position. If they 
believe that Psa. xiv. was written by an unknown poet 
in the period of the exile,they cannot see that that belief 
affects the question of its inspiration. Inspiration, it is 
true, must be found in the author, not in his book ; 
just as the Hfe is in the tree, and not in the fruit, 
though the fruit is the raison d' itre of the tree. But 
the tree must nevertheless be judged by its fruit ; and 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIE W. 339 

the inspiration of the author can only be known to us 
by his book. The evidence of the inspiration of that 
Psalm then is not to be found in its supposed Davidic 
authorship, as if everything- that he might have writ- 
ten must have been inspired ; it must rather be found 
in the religious quality of the Psalm, its power, as Col- 
eridge put it, to find the human soul at the greatest 
depth of its being. The bitter curses in Psa. cix. are 
no more appropriate on Christian lips, and no more in 
harmony with the higher revelation in Christ, on the 
theory of the Jewish editors that David was the author, 
than on the more probable theory that this is the out- 
pouring of a soul, deeply moved of God indeed, but 
who had endured persecutions of which David did not 
dream. 

Moses was doubtless inspired to act, to speak, to 
judge, yes, and to write. But the fruit by which we 
must judge cannot be changed by assuming that Moses 
was the stock on which it grew. The inspiration of the 
Priest-code is to be seen in its contribution to the re- 
ligious life of Israel — and that was not small — and this 
is not greater on the supposition that it came from the 
hand of the great lawgiver, than on the view that it 
was the growth of many years, culminating in its fin- 
ished form in the post-exilic era. 

There are two elements disclosed in the Old Testa- 
ment, the human and the divine. Some theories of its 
origin have laid undue stress upon the one, and some 



340 THE OLD TESTAMBJSTT FROM 

upon the other. We cannot get along very well without 
allowing a large influence to both factors. If some- 
times the human element seems so conspicuous thpt we 
feel, like the troubled Psalmist, that God has aban- 
doned His saints, at other times we hear so pure a voice 
from Heaven that God seems to have chosen a peculiar- 
ly transparent soul through which to send His light, or 
even, to use an Old Testament figure, to have written 
with His own finger. 

The Old Testament must be studied scientifically. 
The literary critic, the historical critic, the historian of 
religion, the archaeologist, the grammarian and the lexi- 
cographer, must contribute all the light they have to 
the solution of its many hard problems. We shall but 
delude ourselves if we ever say their work is finished, 
they can go no further; we are willing to accept what 
they have at present achieved if they will rest content. 
It can never be said to these investigators, So far you 
shall go and no farther, so long as they keep to their 
proper sphere, which is largely the human element in 
the Scriptures. But if they ever attempt to go further, 
and say that God was not behind Israel in their history, 
in their institutions, in their religion, and in their litera- 
ture, then we may point out the great gulf which the 
literary critics may not cross, 

I can find no satisfactory concluding words for this 
book except some words of St. Paul, who knew the 
Scriptures so well and loved them so dearly, and an 



THE MODERN POINT OF VIEW. 34I 

Advent Collect which is based upon St. Paul. They are 
so suitable because they express the higher purpose of 
the Scriptures to which all scientific investigation must 
be subordinate. 

" Whatsoever things were written aforetime were 
written for our learning, that we through patience and 
comfort of the Scriptures might have hope " (Rom. xv. 

4). 

" Blessed Lord, who hast caused all Holy Scriptures 
to be written for our learning ; Grant that we may in 
such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly 
digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy 
Word we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed 
hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our 
Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen " 



INDEXES. 



I. Abreviations. 

E. E.\ etc. Elohist, etc 6>tf p. 79 

H. C. M. The " Higher Criticism " and the Verdict 

of the Monuments, by the Rev. A. H. 

Sayce. New York: 1894. 

J. J.S etc. Jahvist, etc , See ^. jg 

J. B. L. Journal of the Society of Biblical Litera- 
ture and Exegesis. 

JE 5^^ pp. 83, 100 

L. O. T.^ An Introduction to the Literature of the 

Old Testament, by S. R. Driver, D.D. 

Sixth edition. New York : 1897. 
O. T. J. C.2 The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 

by W. Robertson Smith. Second edition. 

New York: 1892. 
P. Priestly writer See p. 79 



n. Names and Subjects. 

Abd-hiba, or Ebed-Tob, king of Jerusalem 38 

Abib 102 

Abijah's war with Jeroboam 209f. 

Abimelech, king of Gath 280 

Abraham's offering of Isaac 332f. 

Achan, sin of 2ooff. 

Acrostic Psalms .... 265 

Adaptation of Psalms 265 



344 INDEXES. 

Ai, campaign against 163, 2ooff. 

Analysis of books, reasonableness of 80 

Analysis of Historical books 161 

Anonymous Psalms : 66, 269, 272 

Antiochus Epiphanes 302 

Apologetic gain of post-exilic date for Priest-code 1 56 

Archseology and criticism 3ifi. 

Asa's war with the Ethiopians 2iof. 

Asaphic Psalms 27of . 

Babylon's fall 243 

Beth-horon, battle of 72, 322ff . 

Bethel, stories of the origin of the name « . . 92ff. 

Blood revenge. 197 

Book of the Law found in the Temple 54f . 

Book of the " Wars of Jehovah " 1 1 2, 1 1 5 

Booths or Tabernacles, feast of 1 38 

Caleb and Joshua 105 

Cheyne's analysis of Isaiah 49 

" work on Isaiah 224f. 

Christ's verdict in questions of criticism 2 iff. 

Chronicles, additions 2o8ff . 

" character of , ... 80, 203ff., 218 

date of 204 

" omissions 205ff. 

" place in the Canon 204 

value of 2i8f. 

Cities of refuge 64 

Codes of the law , 1 20 

" " " their origin 121 

" " " their parallels 122 

Colophon to Psalm Ixxii 271 

Comparative study of the laws, result of I48f. 

Compilation, a method of bookmaking 12 

Conquest of Canaan i6iff. 

Covenant, date of the code of I49f. 



INDEXES. 345 

Creation, comparison of the two stories of 84ff. 

Criticism does not affect religious value , 3 1 2f, 

" Higher, explained 7ff. 

" of the Old Testament not short-lived 49ff. 

" of the Old Testament and New Testament con- 
trasted 51 

" negative character of i4f. 

textual, of the Old Testament 8 

Cyrus ; 247 

Dan, City of 114 

Date of the Hexateuchal narrative i i4ff. 

David at Saul's court i73f. 

" executes the sons of Saul I94ff. 

" in Chronicles 2o5f . 

and Goliath i73ff. 

" spares Saul's life i8iff. 

" Of David " in Psalm headings 267n. 

Davidic Psalms, Are there any ? 282ff. 

Debts, release of 1 28 

Decalogue, two versions of ' I44ff. 

Delitzsch's acceptance of Modern Criticism 51 

Delitzsch on Isaiah 228 

Deuteronomy, authorship of 64ff. 

" date of 5bff. 

Deutero- Isaiah, analysis of 242f. 

" " character of. 242 

" " influence of 246 

Diatesseron of Tatian 81 

Disagreement of critics 45ff, 24off. 

Discouragement in post-exilic age 235f. 

Dives and Lazarus, Parable of 31 ^f. 

Driver's Introduction , o^f, 

" position as a critic 33f, 

" review of Sayce's " Criticism and the Monuments.' 34 

Edom's devastation 237f. 

Egyptians spoiled by the Hebrews igSf. 



346 INDEXES, 

Elijah and Elisha, stories of 321 

Elohim applied to king and judge 293f. 

Evidence, cautious use of internal 285, 287 

" internal and external 258 

Excavations in Palestine, importance of 43^- 

Exile, conditions in 237f., 244f , 

Ezekiel, priest and prophet 1 57 

First-born of animals 1 32f . 

Gesenius's Grammar, successive editings of 153 

Gibeonites, cunning trick of 163 

" slain by Saul 194 

" treaty with Joshua io7fT. 

Gideon 192 

Greenleaf on evidence 1 1 3ff. 

Greek Psalter 268, 273f., 274, 275 

Goliath, slain by David, or by Elhanan } I78ff. 

Hallelujah Psalms 274 

Harvest Festival % I38f. 

Havvoth- jair 6of., 1 1 5 

Headings in the Book of Isaiah 252 

Headings of prophecies 229 

Headings of the Psalms 266ff ., 275f. , 277ff . 

Hexateuch 53 

" analysis of 79 

Hezekiah's attempt to centralize worship ']-] 

High places forbidden in Deuteronomy 69 

Hiram and Solomon 21 5f. 

Historicity not affected by analysis i loff. 

Historical notes in the headings 272, 274, 278, 281 

History and Philosophy i87f. 

Holiness, the Law of 122 

Hommel's "Ancient Hebrew Tradition " 32f. 

Human and divine in Scripture 339f. 

Incarnation and Criticism 26 



INDEXES. 347 

Inspiration 335^- 

" Sanday's definition of 337 

Interpretative character of history i88ff. 

Isaiah, criticism of 224ff . 

" formation of the Book of 25off . 

Isaianic prophecies, according to Cheyne 224f. 

" " " "Driver 225f. 



J. and E. narratives based on written sources inf. 

Jabesh-Gilead seeks succor in Israel 171 

Jacob named " Israel " 92, 94 

" sent to Syria SQff . 

Jashar, Book of 14, 1 12, 283 

Jeduthun 272 

Jeremiah, formation of the Book of 251 

" and the book of the Law 57 

Jericho, capture of 162 

Joash's assassination 217 

Jonah, Book of 324ff. 

" its character 325 

its lessons 326 

Jonathan the grandson of Moses 70 

Joseph, derivation of the name 95 

" sold into Egypt 96ff. 

Joshua's part in the Conquest 168 

Josiah's reformation 54, 73 

" " based on Deuteronomy 55ff. 

Judges, character of the Book of i9of. 

King, law of the, in Deuteronomy (>'j 

Kiriath-Sepher 4if. 

Korahitic Psalms 27of. 

Lachish 43f. 

Lambeth Conference, its utterance on Criticism 28f . 

Landmark, law of 63 



■348 INDEXES. 

Levites, their relation to priests , . . o . I43f., 158 

" their revenues I43f. 

Literary analysis work for the expert , 8if. 

Maccabean Psalms 293 

Manasseh's Babylonian captivity ...... . , 21 1 f. 

Melchizedek 37ff . 

Messianic Prophecy 33of • 

" Psalms 293 

Miracles 31 9ff. 

Mosaic authorship of the Law 1 5 if. 

" " " Pentateuch . .4if., iiyf. 

" elements in Deuteronomy 73f. 

Moses works signs 320 

Moral difficulties of the Old Testament I97f. 

Nabonidus . 249 

Natural and the supernatural 31 7f. 

Nehemiah - 236 

New Testament use of the Old Testament I7ff. 

Nicene Creed and the Scriptures 26f., 314, 315 

Nisan 103 

Northern Kingdom in Chronicles 207 

" On the other side of Jordan " 59f. 

Partisan history 1 88f . 

Passage of the Red Sea 32of. 

Passover r38f. 

Institution of , . 99fT. 

Pentateuch, a compilation 47 

Peters, Dr. J. P., speech at Church Congress 42f. 

Pilgrim feasts 1 33ff. 

Pillars forbidden in Deuteronomy „ . . . . 72f. 

Pious fraud in re the finding of the Law 74ff. 

Predictive Prophecy 227f. 



INDEXES. 349 

Priest-code I53f. 

" date of 48 

Priestly institutions earlier than priestly law 1 59f. 

" revenues , 14 ff. 

Prophecy, apologetic value of 222f., 329^ 

" basis for its dating . . 226f. 

Prophets ignorant of Deuteronomy 72ff. 

Prophetic office 227f. 

Prophets, revelation by ... . 333^' 

" studied historically 223 

Psalms of David 258 

" Pilgrim , 273f. 

" referring to a king 288ff. 

Psalter, divisions of 26off., 266 

" duplicates in ^ 26off. 

" Elohistic and Jahvistic 263 

" hymn book of the second temple. 259 

" influence of 255 

" Jewish criticism of 257f. 

" why studied critically 256 

" Baethgen's view of the date 257 

" Cheyne's ** " " 256f. 

" Driver's " " " 257 

" Ewald's " " " 257 

Wellhausen's " *• " 256 

Religious ideas as evidence of date 286f. 

Reuben and Gad on the east of the Jordan I05ff. 

Righteousness by the law 307f. 

Rizpah watches the bodies of her sons 195, 196 

Revelation 332ff . 

Sabbath , go 

day, reasons for its institution i45f. 

" law, original form of I46f. 

" year, the laws of 1 26fT. 

Sacrifice at many altars 69ff. 



350 . INDEXES. 

Samuel 70 

" anoints David 180, i99f. 

Sanctuary, but one allowed in Deuteronomy 68ff. 

Sanday's argument against Maccabean Psalms 300 

Sargon's campaign against Ashdod 35 

Satan tempts David , 215 

Saul's accession to the throne i68ff. 

Sayce's " Higher Criticism and the Monuments " 33 

" Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian " 57n. 

Sennacherib's conquest of Samaria and assassination 36, 37 

Septuagint version of the story of David and Goliath 17 ff. 

Signs and wonders 3 1 3^- 

Slaves, release of 131 

Slavery, laws of I29ff. 

Spies sent to Canaan io3ff . 

Spirit for critical investigation 53f. 

Solomon in Chronicles 2o6f . 

Solomonic Psalms ; . . . 277f. 

Sources of the Book of Kings 212 

'• " " Chronicles 2i3f. 

Supernatural in Old Testament 313^. 

Sun and moon standing still 323f. 

Synagogues 303, 306 

Tell-el-Amarna Letters 38, 41 

The Law and the Prophets 1 54ff. 

Theology and History 193 

Theodore of Mopsuestia 2,1 

Timeliness of Josiah's reforms 76ff. 

Tithe, the laws of the I22ff. 

Unleavened Bread, Feast of loiff. 

Uzziah's conflict with the priests 211 

Variation in text 262, 264f. 

W. R. Smith's argument against Maccabean Psalms 300 



INDEXES. 



351 



Genesis. 
i., ii 



III. Scriptural Passages. 
Leviticus. 



84ff. 

i. i-ii. 4 2i9f. 

vii. i6 49 

xxvii. 41-45, xxviii. 10 Spff. 

xxvii. 46-xxviii. 5 Spff. 

xxviii. 35 92ff. 

xxx. 23f 95f. 

xxxii. 28 94 

xxxvi. 31 ii4f. 

xxxvii 96ff . 

xl. 15 98 

xlii. 21 99 



XXV. 39-46 I29ff. 

xxvii. 26 133 

xxvii. 30-33 I22ff. 

Numbers. 

xiii. 14 I03ff. 

xviii. 1-20 I4iff. 

xviii. I7f I32f. 

xviii. 21-32 I22ff. 

xxii. i-ii I5if. 

xxviii., xxix 140 

xxxii. 20-32 io6f. 

xxxii. 41 115 



Exodus. 

iii. 2if 

viii. 18 , 

xi. if 

xii. I -xiii. 27 



199 

320 

199 

99ff. 



xii. 14-20 loiff. 

xii. 35f 198 

xiii. 3-10 loiff. 

xiv. 21 321 

xviii 151 

XX. 8 II, 17 145 

XX. 24ff 56 

xxi. 2-1 1 I29ff. 

xxii. 30 I32f. 

xxiii. lof i26ff. 

xxiii. 14-17 I33ff. 

Leviticus. 

xvi i58f. 

xxi. 7. 14 » 159 

xxiii. 4ff I33ff- 

XXV. 1-7 I26ff. 



Deuteronomy. 

ii. 12 60 

iii. 14 60, 61 

iv. 45f 61 

V. 12-15, 21 145 

xii. 5ff 56 

xiii. iff , 3i6f. 

xiv. 22-29 1 22ff. 

XV. iff I26ff. 

XV. 12-18 I29ff. 

XV. 19-23 1325. 

xvi. 1-17,... I33ff. 



xvii. I4ff. 
xviii. 1-8. 
xix. 14. . . 
XX. 5 , 

xxii. 8 

xxvii. 1-4, 



Joshua. 



i.-xii. 

vii. 4, 



67 
I4iff. 

63 
63 
66 



l62ff. 

200 



352 



INDEXES, 



Joshua viii. 3f., 13. 2oin. 

ix. 15-27 loyff. 

X. II 323 

X. 12, 13 323 

X. 4of 164 

xi. 4 164 

xi. 23 164 

Judges. 

i i66f. 

ii. I iff ipof. 

iii. 12-15, 30 191 

V. 1 10 

vi. 13 192 

xvii., xviii 70 

I. Samuel. 

viii.-xii 170 

viii. 4ff 169 

xvi. iff I99f. 

xvi. I iff. .... . 173 

xvi. 18, 23. . , 283 

xvii. I -xviii. 5 .,.,. i8of. 

xvii. 4, 7. 178 

xvii. 12 i''4n. 

xvii. I2ff 176 

xvii. 33f 175 

xviii. 6 1 80 

xxi 71 

xxi. 12 280 

xxi. 19 178 

xxiv., xxvi 1 8 1 ff . 

XXX. 25 152 

II. Samuel. 

i. 19-27 283 

iii. 33ff 283 

V. 2 172 



II. Samuel vii. 13 291 

xxi -xxiii 179, 279 

xxi. 1-14 I94ff. 

xxiii. I ; 284 

xxiii. 1-7 283 

xxiv. 1 215 

I. Kings. 

iii. 14 214 

ix. II 215 

II. Kings. 

ix. 27f 216 

xii. 2off 217 

xvii. 3ff 36/. 

xix. 36ff 36 

xxii. 10 54 

xxii. 13 56 

I. Chronicles. 

XX. 5. . 178 

xxi. 1 215 

II. Chronicles. 

i. 3 214 

viii. 2 215 

xxii. 7-9 216 

xxiv. 25f 217 

Psalms. 

i.-xli 266ff. 

ii 266 

iii 278f. 

iv 307f. 

ix., x 266f. 

xiv 338/. 

xiv., liii 26of. 

xviii 279 



INDEXES. 



353 



Psalms XX 259, 288ff. 

xxi 29off. 

xxii 309ff. 

xxiv 268 

xxvii 268 

xxix 268 

xxxiii 267 

xxxiv 280 

xxxviii 268f. 

xl.. 1. li 296ff. 

xl. 6 296 

xlii.-xliii 269f., 311/. 

xlii.-lxxxix 296!?. 

xliv 3oif. 

xlv - 292ff. 

1. 5 297 

1. 8-15 297 

li 297f. 

li. i8f 298f. 

Ixvi., Ixvii 270 

Ixxi 270 

Ixxii.. 271!., 277 

Ixxiv 302ff . 

Ixxix 306 

Ixxxvi 271 

Ixxxviii II, 272 

xc.-cl . . 272ff. 

xcvi ... 27511. 

civ. 14, 24 318 

cix 339 

ex 23f. 

cxx.-cxxxiv 273!. 

cxxvii 278 

cxxxvii 232, 245, 307 

cli. (Ixx.) 275 



Isaiah. 

i.-xii 252 

i. 11-14 155 

xiii.-xxiii 252f. 

xiii. i-xiv. 23 229ff. 

xix. 19 72 

XX 35 

xxiv.-xxvii 232ff. 

xxiv.-xxxv 253 

xxvi. I 236 

xxxiv., XXXV 236ff. 

xxxvi.-xxxix 224, 229 

xl.-lxvi 228, 242ff., 334 

xlv. iff 248 

xlv. 9-13 248f. 

xlvi. if 249 

xlvii. if 250 

xlviii. 20 250 

liii 244,331, 335 

liii. 2 329 

Jeremiah. 

vi. 20 155 

vii. 21 155 

xi. 1-8 57 

xxxvi.. 222n. 

Ezekiel. 

xliv. II 158 

xliv. 22 159 

xlv. i8ff 158 



Hosea. 
vi. 6. 



Proverbs, 
xxii. 28, 



63 



Amos. 

V. 21-23. 
V. 25 



154 



154 
155 



354 

Micah. 

vi. 6-S.. 

Jonah. 

iv. 2 

Zechariah. 
xi. 13 

I. Maccabees. 

i. 44ff... 

iii. 46 

iv. 38... 
iv. 46 . . . 



INDEXES. 

St. Matthew. 
154 xxvii. 9 15 

St. Luke. 

xvi. 31 316 

327 -XX. 37 21 

xxiv. 44 22 

Acts. 

15 viii. 34 331 

X 309 

Romans. 

305 XV. 4 341 

306 
305f. Hebrews. 
305 i- I I7f. 



OCT 4 »»^^ 



/111 









CONGRESS 




mm&^mw^ 



^MSKmrmm 



m^mmm 



■mmm 

mmm- ^ 



